Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive117

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 12 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Very contradicting edits on Dr. No

Hey there,

On the Dr. No page a couple of weeks ago I added in the 2012 gross for Dr. No and I used the exact same website and Math and Wikipedia format that was used on the Dr. No page, and the FWTL page. But an editor didn't like my edit, and deleted it, while the other 2012 gross. I complained on the Talk page about this and how it seemed that there was some editors who were contradicting and it seemed like they didn't want my edit (and I'll say again, my edit contained the exact same Math as the other different in years money did). I reverted my edit back and told them about this and how the other edit (which was practically exactly the same except it was about the 2012 budget while mine was the 2012 gross) was kept in. Some editor said that it classed as OR as I worked out the calculations myself, but actually it didn't and then another editor said that it didn't as anyone can just click on the link to the website where we found the calculation and then just work out the math themselves as its easy to do.

Yesterday I was on the Dr. No page and saw that the 2012 budget was still in, which I deleted. But it got reverted. I then put my old edit back it, but that was taken out. I put it back in explaining why and how the other edit was there. Then a editor deletes my edit, while leaving the 2012 budget in and claims that I am vandalising the page by putting it back in and says he will report me if I do it again. It seems like he hasn't even read the talk page and says that I haven't either, which I have and there is no reason given to why the 2012 budget should be kept in but not the gross. I am fed up with these contradictions and it is starting to feel like a personal attack, and that is why I am on here reporting this.

But basically, I am fed up with these editors deleting my edit about the 2012 Dr. No gross, but keeping in another edit (the 2012 Dr. No budget), and when I delete the 2012 budget, they put it back in. I am hugely fed up and offended by this as it couldn't be more obvious of a personal attack as they basically don't like my edit. I think I have even had problems with one of them before, and that would result more in a personal attack.

I have explained everything to them, but they are not listening. Could you please help sort this out? Charlr6 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, no-one has made a personal attack against you at all. A personal attack is when the other editor comments on you as a person (like saying "you are just too stupid to understand this") as opposed to talking about your edits. Having your article edits challenged and reverted is not a personal attack in any way, it is how we build the encyclopedia, by checking each others' work. Second, it is you who is not listening in that conversation, the other editors have explained over and over that the budget figure is from one year (thus can be inflation-adjusted easily) while the gross proceeds are from a span of several years. Why is it so important to you to have your edit accepted? Is the article really that bad without it? Third, removing the current-valued budget figure as retaliation for your own edit not being accepted does qualify as vandalism, since you are not making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, you seem to be trying to get some kind of revenge. I would suggest you carefully re-read what the other people there have been saying, as I think they are making sense. You should try not to take it personally when your edits get reverted (the wiki-gods know enough of my edits have been! :) and if you find yourself getting frustrated, take a break or find something more fun to work on in the encyclopedia. Hope that helps. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help

<! In the show Supernatural the character Adam Milligan was introduced in season 4 and died in the same episode. However, in season five he was brought back from the dead. In the finale of season five he was sucked into a portal to hell. It was never stated he died again. He was alive and sucked into a portal, alive, into hell. An editor keeps adding that he is deceased to his description of Adam on the Dean Winchester page, can someone help me.>

This is not the proper place for this discussion. I started a discussion on the article's talk page about this disagreement. There has been no incivility on my part. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm requesting assistance. I never said you were uncivil. But you won't stop adding your opinion, and I can't convince you so I'm asking for help.

And I'm telling you this is not the place for that. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to request help. If it's the wrong place I'll find the right one. However, you won't listen so yes I am reqeusting help.

Odoita, Rreagan is correct. This is the wrong forum for discussing a pure content dispute. Look at the instructions at the top of the page. You can continue the content discussion on the article Talk page, or you can look at WP:DR for other possibilities, but this forum is for complaints about editors who are uncivil or disrespectful, not just about editors who disagree with you. I see nothing that indicates that Rreagan was uncivil. Also please remember to sign your posts. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hounding and name-calling by an editor


An editor who appears determined to fight simply to be contentions, even after I've gone along with his reasoning, is following me around "policing" me. I am a longtime editor with a history of collegial behavior with colleagues.

He has also attacked me with highly personal name-calling ("puerile") and over-the-top assertions about my mental health ("paranoid accusation"; both here). If you go to his talk page, you'll see I've been absolutely nothing but polite.

On March 7, I moved Slant Magazine to SlantMagazine.com with the summary "Like Salon.com, an online-only magazine with no print component." Another editor did an RM which DeLarge summarily closed it in his own favor (SlantMagazine.com) after less than a day.

After I politely requested here that he reopen it, he did so. You'll see I showed flexibility and conceded his point that, though this is a website and not a print magazine, that the title should not be SlantMagazine.com.

So far, so good. Wikipedia works through consensus and discussion. But then DeLarge decided to scour my edit history and follow me to other pages involving website names. I still behaved in good faith: After he started an RM at Radar Online here, to remove ".com" from the title, I myself went to two other pages I had moved and, as DeLarge had done, posted RMs (here and here). And although these are comic-book sites unrelated to general-interest magazine-type sites, he made it his mission to follow me to those two pages as well.

I still didn't say anything. He wanted to follow me around, fine. I act in good faith, and when I saw the consensus was quickly clear not to have ".com," I voluntarily withdrew my move of those two pages. (Here and here.) I even bit my tongue over being followed, and posted a very good-sport comment on DeLarge's talk page. He and other editors showed me the consensus is for no ".com."

Here is where it gets awful. DeLarge then continued to follow me — at this point, I considered it hounding — to Salon.com and TMZ.com, where, following the consensus, I had changed to "Salon (website)" and "TMZ (website)", since they needed disambiguation.

Now, reasonable people can disagree; that's not the issue. The issue is that DeLarge simply will not let go of this. He was decided to become my personal police officer following me around in order to approve of any article-name moves I make. At the Salon and TMZ articles, where I removed ".com" just as he had, he has started RMs to put them back! *

And again, that's a side issue. The real issue is his appointing himself policeman of title edits. I understand, absolutely, when editors who have watch-paged a site may disagree with an edit I make, and who might request an RM. (No one else did so at Salon and TMZ, incidentally.) But to specifically follow me around, personally, to approve or disapprove of my edits — and then to viciously verbally attack me after I very politely — as you can see when I brought this up to him here — well, is he allowed to verbally attack other editors that way? Is he allowed to follow me around and approve or disapprove my title edits for the rest of my time on Wikipedia?

I don't believe either of those things are right, and I ask for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

* He says there's "no good reason" to make the change — which is only his opinion yet he treats it as irrefutable fact. He himself contested to remove ".com" at at those other pages, arguing that the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous — they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that doesn't change the name of the site. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason. [Tenebrae moved sentences to footnote to make easier to follow as per below.]

I'm having trouble following you on this, Tenebrae. To constitute hounding, it normally has to be done for an improper purpose. So, even following someone around, if the editor's comments are justifiable, that wouldn't generally be hounding. As for DeLarge's comments about "puerile" and "paranoid accusation", that's pretty mild stuff. You really can't interpret the phrase "paranoid accusation" as a comment on your mental health, can you? It would have been more civil not to use either term, but he apparently just thinks you're overreacting.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your responding. I'm unsure about your conclusions, though. You seem to be saying it's OK to call other editors names and to insult them as long as it's "pretty mild".
First, I don't consider them "pretty mild"; no one would use them in a professional setting without reprimand, and if the Wikipedia standard for civility is that we can insult and name-call people all we want as long as we don't curse, that's a pretty hostile environment and no wonder we're losing editors.
I'm also surprised that someone could speak as calmly and politely as I do and have that be called "overreacting." Even if that were the case, you're saying that's an acceptable reason to verbally attack another editor. I don't believe there's any good reason to verbally attack another editor and I'm dismayed that seem to.
I'd also please ask you consider that someone deliberately shadowing any other editor, for whatever reason, is hounding them. No one has the right to appoint themselves another editor's personal arbiter of what he can and can't do. I'd ask that we not summarily dismiss this editor's hostile behavior. It is not alright. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly understand your frustration with Wikipedia's civility "standards"; you're not alone. However, in this instance, the DeLarge comments aren't directed to any uncivil statement you made, but to your accusation that he's hounding you. Finally, I think you should read more carefully WP:HOUND: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." In other words, if DeLarge objects to your edits as he allegedly follows you around, and his objections aren't frivolous, I don't think that fits the definition of hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If I honesty believe I'm being hounded, and give evidence of it, whether he agreed with my evidence or not, I'm not sure how else anyone would phrase what I told him. We're supposed to talk to the editors before bringing things to ANI. This seems a Catch-22: I'm supposed to discuss an issue politely with him, but then he can attack me because I discussed it with him at all. That's not right.
Since my original long post may not have explained it well: He argued that website names should not have ".com" in the title. When I followed his own reasoning at Salon.com and TMZ.com, he now says websites should have ".com" in the title. Yes, I believe his objections are frivolous. (I would also argue contentious and disruptive, but one thing at a time.) --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Tenebrae, you can comment as much as you like - I'm not trying to discourage you from doing so. To the extent your coment about admins means you think I'm an admin - I'm not. As for your claim about inconsistent arguments, could you help us out with diffs on that issue (if you already included that in your original post, please just help me out and repeat that one part concisely as your original post was kinda long)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Responding to request by Bbb23: See the RM discussions at the listed pages. When I added ".com" he wanted them removed because the names of website shouldn't have them, he said. Following this, I removed ".com" from two pages. He said no, since ".com" disambiguated. I pointed out that "(website)" disambiguated in exactly the same way and, moreover, goes along with his strongly asserted view that the names of websites shouldn't have them. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) If you don't want other people reviewing your edits, this may not be the ideal site for you. It seems that DeLarge encountered a move discussion where they became concerned with your interpretation of naming guidelines and decided to review your other activity in article moves. I don't see anything improper with that, if your activity was "right" then it will be supported by consensus on review and DeLarge will stop - and if it wasn't, then hopefully you will learn from the review to be a better editor. The mere fact that you are being disagreed with is not hounding. Now if DeLarge suddenly started turning up in completely unrelated areas where you normally work and they never do, or entering an opinion opposite to yours in every discussion you partake in - THAT would be hounding. But they're not doing this to cause you distress, they're doing it to ensure a quality encyclopedia.
As far as the supposed incivility, I would suggest that your somewhat overstated accusations of hounding, ownership, etc. were not particularly civil, and yeah, I would even say they were rather paranoid. Franamax (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
See my Catch-22 point above. And unless you're a mental-health professional speaking in a clinical setting, throwing around a psychiatric term in a derogatory way is purposefully and needlessly insulting. We can all make all points using polite, civil language. If you deliberately choose not to, that's rude behavior and there's no reason for that.
I've been a Wikipedian for nearly seven years and over 60,000 edits. I certainly know the policies, guidelines and culture here, and your summarily suggesting "this may not be the ideal site for you" I found patronizing and ill-informed for this reason: No one said anything about not wanting other people to review my edits; that's a leap of logic without warrant. Other people review my and every one else's edits all the time. That DeLarge has appointed himself my personal policeman rather than let editors who normally go to the Salon and TMZ articles review my edits is the issue at hand. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Some editors are more blunt than others. In an ideal world, every one of our comments on Wikipedia would be without any unnecessary comment on editor conduct, but, when good editors make arguably more forceful comments, it's often against a backdrop of some history. DeLarge could have just said your hounding accusation was incorrect and an overreaction, but he used more forceful language because he thought you were off base. Franamax could have said that reviewing edits on Wikipedia is normal without saying the sentence about this not being the right place for you, but he chose to add some blunt advice.
Bottom line. It doesn't appear you're being hounded, and the comments made here and by DeLarge are not that awful. My suggestion is to move on, learn from it, and let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time and effort to comment thoughtfully here. "Blunt", however, is not the same as "rude" and "deliberately insulting", and there's no excuse for that.
The only way things will improve is if editors of good will such as yourself join in saying, "That's inappropriate and goes against Wikipedia guidelines for etiquette." It's well discussed all over Wikipedia and in the outside media that newcomers find this a hostile environment, and even experienced editors leave because of this. That is not in the long-term best interests of Wikipedia, and I don't believe any of us should simply excuse it. "Not cursing" is a pretty low bar of civility. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point, although I'm not sure that this particular example is the best to make your civility case. I've followed many of the civility discussions at Wikipedia and decided that the disagreement among experienced editors is profound and unlikely to change. The "truth", in my view, is this is not a traditional (better word than professional) environment. It's a structured but often anarchistic virtual environment by its very nature. Comparisons to other environments are problematic, although I understand the reason for and the urge to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 here.

First, on the topic of civility, I should disclose that I have a somewhat less liberal interpretation of WP:CIV than many others that I notice on Wikipedia; I feel that the community is often too lenient on offenders, and does little or nothing to discourage genuine violation of that policy. That said, I also believe that at times some members of the community go a bit too far in applying WP:CIV to the point where our language is essentially straightjacketed to the point of having to speak entirely in lifeless, milquetoast Orwellian euphemisms. Specifically, while I do believe that engaging in name-calling is not permitted, we should have enough freedom in language to characterize ideas we feel are objectionable. While I can understand calling an editor "puerile" or "paranoid" may be borderline (or even over the line, depending on the term being used), I do not think we should be censored from referring to ideas, positions or arguments as such. Some may feel that this is hair-splitting, but I do not. While characterization a person with such terms is a form fo ad hominem argument, characterizing ideas or arguments is not, and that's the main difference. I realize such subtleties may provide room for some bad-faith policy violators to split hairs in their attempts to game the system, but the distinction is there none the less. The entire crux of disputes, after all, is the manner in which we disagree with each others' arguments or positions, which is why we need breathing room to discuss why we disagree. I'm not saying that such disputes cannot be conducted with words like "puerile" or "paranoid", but at the same time, censoring such language makes it harder for people to articulate their problems with certain ideas, and would merely relegate us to using obscure euphemisms. In other words, instead of saying that an argument is paranoid, someone could just say, "This argument seems to be based on a delusion, and the editor's projection of a personal conflict, in which he ascribes hostility to me." This is, after all, the definition of paranoia, and if anyone objects to the word "delusion", then that can be replaced with "false or misleading idea", and so forth. Disputes would simply become longer and bogged down by doublespeak. It is best, for this reason, to falsify arguments by explaining why the argument is wrong or unsound. Why is the argument not paranoid or misleading? Or, in other words, explain why it is perfectly sound?

As for hounding, again, if the purpose for reviewing an editor's edit history is improper, than one should be able to show the impropriety by virtue of their dispute. I myself have been known to go through the edit history of editors who appeared to make bad faith edits, and on at least one or two occasions, was accused of stalking or some similar activity, but that accusation didn't hold water, because any action I took as a result of my findings was always in accordance with the site's policies and guidelines. Ask DeLarge why he started RMs to restore the ".com" suffix to the Salon and TMZ article titles. Did he specify his reasons in the RM? If so, were those reasons transparently false or inconsistent with his past editing? If so, this should've been apparent if one were to point it out. Personally, when I write out citations to stories on Comic Book Resources, Comics Bulletin and Radar Online, and many other publications, I tend not to use the suffix, because the logos of those publications seen on their website seems to indicate that the suffix is just that: a suffix, and not a part of their name proper. This is also true of Salon.com and TMZ.com, but those articles cannot simply be "Salon" and "TMZ", because of the need for disambiguation with other articles. While using parentheticals is common for disambiguation, I've noticed that article titles will sometimes use other means of disambiguation that when aspects of the topic's name provides opportunities for doing so. For example, both David Alan Mack and David W. Mack are credited simply as "David Mack" in their works, yet their articles use their middle names or middle initials for disambiguation, instead of using "(painter)" or "(artist)" for the latter. Is it possible that this is why DeLarge insisted on using the suffix instead of the parentheticals for those two articles? Did he give indication for his reasons for this in the RMs? Nightscream (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming by and taking the time, Nightscream. No, he simply said my disambiguation was "no good reason" without engaging in any good-faith discussion with me. Some editors are like that: They simply want to have their way, and if you disagree, no matter how politely, they call you names.
I agree with you that language should be direct and not straitjacketed. But there's a vast middle ground of respectful disagreement that doesn't involve euphemism. Mealymouthed on the one hand and verbally abusive on the other aren't the only options.
And we all know that people only resort to insults and name-calling when they know they're in the wrong. People in the right don't need to lose their tempers and bully people to get their way, since calm logic and reason prevail among reasonable individuals. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank the community briefly for their common sense.

I could dispute several of the specific complaints or the way they've been misrepresented here, but that'd just drag the whole thing along unnecessarily. However, on the matter of the last point, that I "simply said [his] disambiguation was 'no good reason' without engaging in any good-faith discussion with me", this is completely untrue. I have lost count of the number of times I have quoted part of the MoS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, which says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." It's on my talk page more than once, bolded for emphasis, and on several article talk pages where moves have been requested. I really don't know how quoting the MoS itself can be construed as "ill faith", or not engaging in discussion (in fact I've done pretty much nothing but discuss this for the last week — my recent edit history is proof of that).

Tenebrae, the community did not "[show you] the consensus is for no '.com.'" We showed that in the case of Comics Bulletin, Comic Book Resources, and Radar Online, that no disambiguation of any kind was necessary. That's all. There was no objection by anyone, at any time, to using the TLD suffix where disambiguation was necessary as it is at Salon.com and TMZ.com. There was never any suggestion by any editor that .com should be replaced with (website), or vice versa. Both disambiguation terms are equally acceptable, which is why both are widely used at the articles within Category:websites and its sub-categories. Favouring one term over another violates WP:TITLECHANGES as far as I'm concerned, and runs roughshod over the legitimate choices previous editors have made. I've been saying this to you for more than a week now, and I don't know a simpler way to express it. --DeLarge (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, you keep either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have said every time you bring up the "no good reason" policy, which is that I have good reasons. Retaining the integrity of the name is a very good reason. Site consistency is a second very good reason.
You may disagree with these two reasons, but it is the height of hubris for you to declare that your POV is stone cold fact and that anyone who disagrees with you has "no good reasons."
That is one more example of your bullying behavior. And since it seems the editors here think your verbal abuse of me on your talk page, where I was resolutely polite, is OK, then I assume it's OK if I respond in turn. You called me names — very mature — and even gave your amateur opinion of that I was mentally ill. Someone who verbally bullies another person who has been polite as a lamb has no conscience and certainly not the empathy that all normal adults are supposed to have. Since you feel it's OK for you to make mental-health pronouncements, then it'd be hypocritical of you to object to my doing so: Someone without conscience or empathy is the definition of a sociopath. Perhaps you're in the shallow end of that spectrum, but a verbally abusive bully is a type of sociopath. Are you feeling what I felt now when you verbally abused me? I'm sure you don't — because you have no conscience or empathy for other people and you think it's perfectly OK to call people names and insult them. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

85.246.163.58 -- Personal insults (portuguese extremely offensive words) + ongoing vandalism

Personal insults in my discussion page (portuguese translates to "Go fuck yourself") and in SL Benfica history (portuguese translates to: "Son of a bitch, who are you?")

Besides that, ongoing vandalism. Linuxftw (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the discussion that you reference in this edit summary. When you placed your first warning on IP.85's talk page they had not vandalised at all. Vandalism is bad faith editing. It does not mean editing you disagree with. It appears that you have misunderstood Wiki-policy on editing. Edits do not have to be discussed beforehand. Failure to discuss before hand is not vandalism. While IP85 should have gone to the discussion page after you reverted their edit, I imagine that they (like me) were confused by your edit summary. It's disappointing that you both chose to edit war. It's also disappointing that IP85 decided to react to your error in the way they did.
Do you both understand the errors that you've made (in my assessment)? Would it be possible for you both to apologize to each other and discuss the issue civilly on the article talk page? Danger High voltage! 23:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The IP was bringing back an already seen (check the history, which leads to bans with sockpuppets) content Dispute, me being part of it. However, when the whole content dispute started (about 1 and half months ago), the page was as I left it. Since it had been like that for around a year and an IP (which then became two users and that I believe is the same person with the new 85IP) decided to change it. Since we have different points of view, we should discuss it in the discussion page (it's what I've been saying). Furtherome, since the page had been like that for around a year (and it's a pretty popular page), it seems that the only right thing to do while we don't discuss (to solve our dispute) is to leave the page as it was and has been for a year. Is nothing going to be done? I was insulted, called a "Son of A bitch" twice and told to "go fuck myself" in my discussion page. I hope you understand why I say that it was vandalism: this issue has been discussed several times an the user insists upon changing the article, enforcing his point of view (countering the whole year that said information has been inthe article) without any discussion or debate about it. Does that not seem like vandalism to you? Linuxftw (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the "discussion" that I mentioned with that edit was...kind of the lack of discussion. It was a warning that a previous IP had when the content dispute started. From then, given it was a content dispute, I meant that "it has been discussed that this is a content dispute, and, hence, these changes have to be discussed and debated, to solve our differences". Yes, that was not explicit, I am aware of it, Linuxftw (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. I didn't realize that IP85 was not a static IP (computer magic confuses me so). Both of you have insisted on enforcing your points of view, that is what edit warring is. It is not vandalism. Both of you have failed to begin a civil discussion (I note that the talk page has not been edited since last September).
IP85, you must understand that personal attacks are never appropriate. Both of you must understand that edit warring is not appropriate.
Linuxftw, what would you like to see happen as a result of this filing? Danger High voltage! 02:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, some kind of temporary ban on the IP. I cannot believe that wikipedia allows users and IPs to continue editing after insulting in such a severe way other editors.
Furthermore, while I understand what you are saying, I am not enforcing my point of view, I am maintaining the page as it was before somebody decided to change it. Sure, it is "enforcing it", but I am waiting for the IP/user/whatever to edit the discussion page, because he/she was the one that decided to change a line that hadn't been changed in one year. To add to that, said user continues to edit the page without creating a proper debate for it. Note that, again, the page had been edited many times (including that paragraph) by many users but that phrase itself has always been kept. It seems rational to leave it there and discuss the changes to it and not the other way around -- or do you believe that one user/ip is the only one that sees how "evil" such a line is? Just check how far back that phrase goes to and how many edits it has gone through! Check the history of that user/ip (if indeed it is clear that he is behind a dynamic IP) -- he clearly has clubistic reasons, believing that a rival club fan added the phrase and that, somehow, everybody just agreed to it over the year. Note that in his edit to the FC Porto page, he clearly intended to harm the club's image (not that what he added was true or false, but you get the picture + lack of references), once again establishing that his intent is not that of improving the article, but of making his "club" look good and other clubs look "bad"; more important than that, he sees other edits as part of this -- accusing me and others of being "anti-Benfica" and whatnot (again, if it is confirmed that he is the same IP, which seems almost obvious right now -- the previous IP also insulted me and other IPs that tried to revert his edits at the time) Linuxftw (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the user has created a new account and he's using it to continue vandalizing the page (now adding youtube videos as references!): called Haters gonna hate forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . When is something going to be done? Linuxftw (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
IP is blocked for 60 hours for the obvious personal attacks. New user doesn't appear to be the same one. Possibly a meatpuppet but they are not on the same IP address in any case. — foxj 05:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

122.60.93.162 Personal insults/non-relevant/making assertions without any effort to justify

I regret that I'm not too familiar with this process, so I apologize in advance if I'm going about this the wrong way. User 122.60.93.162 (user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:122.60.93.162 contributions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.60.93.162) has been writing personal insults/non-relevant things in talk pages. Apparently this user has a history of writing these types of things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:122.60.93.162). A few recent specific examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483747958&oldid=483729600 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483603544&oldid=483572000 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483438573&oldid=483390632 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=483222101&oldid=483217519 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&diff=482978343&oldid=482974863

I think it's time to ban this IP. Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

The apparent attitude and frequent personalization of response is indeed poor wikiquette. It appears the address has been blocked by admin User:Gadfium as a violation of block evasion. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:AnkhMorpork, personal attacks against User:Vice regent

Following a minor disagreement about a section of the article, AnkhMorpork began to use personal attacks against Vice regent (see here or here). I tried to warn AnkhMorporkh about his violation of WP:NPA but he didn't stop as the history of the talk page of 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings shows. I then wrote a message on the talk page of AnkhMorpork but he simply deleted it (here). As I have noticed several agressive edits by this contributor, I wondered if someone could help me here. thank you. Eleventh1 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork has a very lively and certain sense of his/her own rightness in any argument. I agree that the diff linked above meets the criteria for a personal attack, and will leave a warning to that effect on his/her user talk page. While I don't think it yet reaches the level of disruption where a block is immediately necessary, a continuing pattern of these attacks after a clear warning might do so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
While it certainly relevant, I do not intend to laboriously detail the exactitudes precipitating my comments. Please clarify why WP:SPADE (and WP:DISHONEST) does not apply (and when they would apply)? Note, I have not accused Vice regent of a conflict of interest but alerted him of its possibility; I made him aware of WP:COI policy.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's wikilawyering. "Reminding" someone of something in the way you did was certainly an assertion on your part of COI. If I said to you "May I remind you not to be a wanker" you would quite reasonably take offence; what is grammatically a reminder is in fact lexically an assertion about you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Point accepted. Can you address the other pints raised? Do you feel this 'assertion' was unjustified considering the editor's conduct?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork posted the message below on my talk page, but in order to centralise the discussion I will reply to it here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My main contention is that the complainant was acting in an tendentious and unethical manner. I considered it appropriate to point this out in line with WP:SPADE. For clarification:
  • Which words constituted the personal attack
  • Why there was no justification to highlight the editorial misconduct
While I do occasionally have a hyperbolic and forceful tone, I do feel it was justified in this instance. Obliged

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
In response to your first question, when you said "I note on your user page that you are a Muslim. You are currently trying to remove evidence of extreme Muslim behaviour. Let me remind you of WP:COI, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" I'm afraid I regard that whole contribution as a bad faith attack based on an assumption that any Muslim is going to be fundamentally unable to edit an article such as this because of their religion. Or at least that any Muslim who disagrees with you is going to necessarily be displaying a conflict of interest.
I'm afraid I don't understand your second question (about why there was no justification etc...) I'm glad that you know how your tone comes across sometimes - that's a very encouraging sign! However my own view is that such a tone is very rarely justified, and certainly not in this case.
So bottom line, yes I do feel your assertion was unjustified. Others may have a different view, of course. It would be good to hear other perspectives on this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So to confirm, this was the sole cause of concern? I shall seek to remedy these comment by rephrasing them in a more agreeable manner.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone. Thanks for pointing out the "Muslim" comment. I'm glad that AnkhMorpork agrees that such comments are inappropriate. I also had a slight concern about the following comment "Your manipulation of Wiki policy in the context of strong disagreement regarding the content is highly unethical." Though this is probably not a personal attack, WP:NPA does say "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Such comments derail the discussion into personal disputes. As WP:AVOIDYOU suggests, if AnkhMorpork truly does have a problem with me, I urge the user to pursue this on WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U etc. I hope we can move past these regrettable incidents and I look forward to editing with AnkhMorpork :). VR talk 03:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Machine Elf 1735: serious accusations of subterfuge and lying, escalating to personal attacks

Machine Elf 1735, with whom I have had no prior contact, responded to my newly filed RfD with an accusation of forum shopping and circumventing discussion. [1] I was startled and tried to refute the arguments calmly, first on the RfD itself and then on an article talk page where he/she had also raised complaints. He/she continued to assume that I was acting in bad faith and escalated the dispute so that it is now at the level of personal attacks, openly accusing me of "subterfuge", stating that it is "perfectly obvious" I have lied, selectively nominated redirects and acted in otherwise manipulative ways. [2]

Machine Elf appears to have jumped to conclusions on several occasions, not only about my supposedly consensus-dodging intentions but also attempting to read between the lines of Nø's words to find opposition to me that I don't think was there. [3] [4] (Second diff includes adding an 'euphemism' tag around some of Nø's words.) Nø has declined to comment publically on the RfD or Machine Elf's comments, but our conversation before the RfD was cooperative and very useful, and I had no need to circumvent or dodge it. Machine Elf's tone throughout has been confrontational and hostile, and when another editor mentioned this while addressing me, has ironically responded by suggesting that they comment on content. [5]

Answers to questions:

  1. What I did wrong: I don't know, and would like to. I nominated the redirects for discussion (not deletion) entirely in good faith, hoping to encourage discussion, not circumvent it.
  2. What have I done to try and fix the situation: Tried to reason with Machine Elf on both involved pages, preferring the talk page for long replies, and resolve any misunderstanding. Unfortunately this has met with further criticism.
  3. What I hope to achieve: I want the accusations against me to stop. If I made genuine mistakes, either in my nom of the redirects or in my handling of the conflict, I want to understand what they were. And finally I would appreciate it if someone other than me could respond to Machine Elf's personal attacks on the RfD itself, so that passers-by do not get confused or turned off by the drama, think it is a bad faith nom and decline to participate. Alternatively if he/she is willing to strike out the comments him/herself, that would be fine too. In a perfect world I would like Machine Elf to realise that his/her assumptions about my intentions were mistaken, and for us to make peace and work together, but I accept that that might be optimistic.

Thank you for your time. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kimelea, is once again repeating the same accusations that I've responded to more than once. Unlike Kimelea, I've backed up what I've said, to which the user overreacts with more high drama denials and novel accusations. Who is perpetuating accusations against whom? Who is inappropriately soliciting responses on her behalf against whom? Who is ratcheting it up to false accusations of personal attacks against whom? Who said: "I don't understand what's led you to assume bad faith so completely… I hope Nø will weigh in here, as you seem to have claimed a hostile !vote on his behalf." Who is making empty accusations of bad faith? Who is lying about what I've claimed? Was it's not a lie? That should be easy enough to prove, why not just produce the diff where I "claimed a hostile !vote on his behalf"? Whatever that means… Why doesn't Kimelea go strikeout her lie so the user won't assume she's telling the truth and "get confused"? Not counting her explicitly stated intentions which she nonetheless denies, I wonder what assumptions those would be? Oh! evidence, let's see:
[6] “Opposed to mass delete and redirects: they're cheep and there's no reason to break existing links. This appears to forum shopping as the consensus was not in favor of redirecting the concept (T'ai chi/Taiji) to the martial art, see the discussion at T'ai chi ch'uan. Thanks”
In bad faith, apparently I assume Kimelea's own person, aka "this", is not at one with her edit history which appeared to [be] forum shopping, (a wicked crime). Startled, Kimelea calmly exclaims "wow" and responds to this “accusation of forum shopping and circumventing discussion” (←not a confession→) “I'm a little stunned by your accusation.” Kimelea admits there was no consensus, but would never make a tactical end-run. Holy holy holy.
The "euphemism" tag being an anchor: Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect.3F, “and following those principles there seems to be no reason to delete ANY of the weird redirects” to point out who is putting what in who's mouth. Thereupon, for no reason, she nominated one side of the redirects for "D".
Clearly, Nø did not agree with Kimelea regarding the redirections, which she herself initially admitted, and now neglects to mention. Here she's implying that they've communicated privately. I wonder what the subject of the conversation would have been? Yes, how ironic that "comment on content" was the end of that, huh? Oh I see, because Kimelea is not addressing me, apparently I should just ignore what she's saying about me. I really should, but who is making demands of whom that can't be ignored? If I weren't being attacked, why would I have a problem "working with" Kimelea?—Machine Elf 1735 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Kimelea announces at Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan:
I have had to take Machine Elf's comments to formal channels as they have escalated to personal attacks. I will no longer discuss his conduct or mine here. I will continue to reply to reasoned, cooperative discussion of the redirects. ~ Kimelea (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Which I'll remove for WP:NPA.—Machine Elf 1735 03:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe Machine Elf's conduct speaks for itself clearly enough for any mediator to see and I have no need to defend myself against the same unfounded accusations we keep hearing. (Well, that and I didn't understand them all - I have no idea what a 'tactical end run' is.) Except one I haven't answered: Machine Elf states that I was lying when I said "You seem to have claimed a hostile !vote on his behalf". Machine Elf asks that I produce the diff where he did this. Here it is: [7] "Now it's 2 to 1 opposed".
Update: Machine Elf has indeed removed my comment (quoted above by him) from Talk:T'ai chi ch'uan, in which I mentioned this WQA request without mentioning WQA itself. [8] I do not agree with this removal, or the reason for it, being that Machine Elf claims it was a personal attack. If we want to go down that route I could make a case for deleting pretty much anything Machine Elf has said, but I won't, to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Machine Elf has also now responded to another editor, implying that their extremely polite comments on his lack of civility also amounted to a personal attack (he linked the editor to WP:NPA). [9] ~ Kimelea (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
“I believe Machine Elf's conduct speaks for itself clearly enough for any mediator to see and I have no need to defend myself against the same unfounded accusations we keep hearing.”
Kimelea, assuming that's not the "royal we", you seem to believe or pretend that any mediator would stand beside you. There's been no comment whatsoever from mediators. We both know you can't justify your multiplying accusations. Those are all personal attacks. You should stop that, and turn over a new leaf. I certainly have better things to do than document your attempts to escalate, or rather, more luridly to portray yourself as prosecutor of a formally recognized inquiry.
"Now it's 2 to 1 opposed". There's nothing “hostile” about being opposed to your proposal Kimelea. I merely agreed with Nø, and at the time, you still acknowledged the two of you had not reached consensus. Was it some kind of prosecution/persecution fantasy? As in “hostile witness”? You're in full control of your mental faculties, which are more than adequate. I never claimed the user was in any way hostile towards you: you're lying.
Evidently, you cannot “make a case for deleting pretty much anything Machine Elf has said”, because if you could have, you would have. What WP:POINT do you think would be made, exactly, if you tried to do that on the basis of (self-evident?) WP:NPA accusations?

The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

— WP:No personal attacks, Policy shortcut: WP:AVOIDYOU
You know perfectly well that I did not imply InferKNOX's comments were a personal attack. He mistakenly read an accusation into the explanatory link WP:comment on content, not on the contributor which I provided because he was clearly unfamiliar with the WP jargon "comment on content" (clearly, it does not invite reflection on the dramatic "content", but rather the encyclopedia content). Indeed, he was polite enough to "just drop it", once I explained that's what I was asking him to do. Sad to see you avail yourself of exaggerating his gesture of moral support on your behalf, as he explicitly disclaimed any opinion on the "content" of the dramz, but offers his subjective take on "my" tone: that it was too harsh. I treat intelligent, competent editors the way I think an intelligent competent editor would expect to be treated, and you were no exception. Kimelea, according to you, he accuses me of a “lack of civility [that] also amounted to a personal attack” on you presumably… For a chaser, you have this ambiguously suggestive non-sequitur: “(he linked the editor to WP:NPA)” Neither InferKNOX nor I have linked each other to WP:NPA.—Machine Elf 1735 15:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right - no mediator has responded to this, which makes it a little pointless to continue the back-and-forth about each other's behaviour. Especially since after my last post here, on Wednesday night, we started working together on the redirect issue, and actually finding a lot of common ground. How about we both assume good faith in each other's intentions, attempt to look past the unfortunate start, and suspend this mediation request while we figure out the best thing to do with the tai chi redirects?
If it is my use of the term 'hostile' that you object to, I apologise and will redact it. I meant it in its sense of opposition, not belligerence. I would request that you redact your own statements about me, namely that x, y and z are 'perfectly obvious', 'circumventing' and 'subterfuge'. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, and better to let go than hold: a clean slate. I'll have to pass regarding redaction, I'm not concerned to ask you to bother with it.—Machine Elf 1735 18:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh! you already did. Thank you.Machine Elf 1735 18:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

British nobility, editors and baboons

Is it a WP:CIVIL act to describe other editors as "unqualified", then to illustrate the point by posting a picture of a baboon to an article talk page? [10] Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA describe this as a problem. WP:OWNERSHIP does. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I would think that the response is both a personal attack and a uncivil.LedRush (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you may both be right. The underlying problem stems from ownership, but characterising other editors as unqualified baboons seems to be a pretty clear civility breach. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of harsh terms


Note: the user previously made personal attacks against me on the account of my religion (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117#User:AnkhMorpork.2C_personal_attacks_against_User:Vice_regent)

I'm wondering if the following remarks made by AnkhMorpork are impolite and uncivil. After identifying me as the sole problematic edit, the user says the following, though not directly with my name:

  • "The combination of obtuse dim-witted people with impartial obscurantist agenda's are the bane of Wikipedia."
  • "I often edit in the I-P remit and rarely chance across such perversity and acute pigheadness."

While insults of "obtuse" and "dim-witted" may be directly generally towards the wikipedia community, the comment "such perversity and acute pigheadness" seems to be directly a reference to my edits. I can't help but feel a bit disappointed by such remarks. I had though that after the previous incident, the user would carefully choose his words when describing other users.VR talk 16:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the general sentiments expressed on my talk page that could be construed as applying to you. Note:I deliberately removed content involving yourself to avoid this association before your complaint. I have redacted the material to avoid confusion.AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that diff you quote vindicates your comments or worsens them. In your above diff, you comment "This domain shall serve as a refuge from tendentious repellent editors whose pollutant content will be summarily removed." You have referred to my edits as "tendentious" before. Furthermore, even after that diff your comment singling me out by name remained.
Anyway: given that this is the second time that this has happened, and the fact that I have never made such personal attacks against you, can you promise that you will not make personal attacks again?
As for me, I promise to remain committed to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as I have been.VR talk 04:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion or modiffication

I contributed an article Anglewing butterflies, which was recently deleted. Why? Also my suggested changes made to Nymphalis were deleted. Why Joe Belicek

This is wrong place for those questions, especially for edits made over 3 years ago. I'll comment further on your talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User: Carptrash harassment of other editor

Please stop this editor from harassing me. I saw some pages had been redirected to a master article, and thought I'd try my hand at helping with the effort User:Carptrash seems to have started to restore the redirects to have contents. As a result, in addition to false accusations at my talk page, User:Carptrash has denigrated me for identifying that the master article for more than 1000 monuments will have about 5 times more display lines if the photographs are included in each row of the master article's table. (There are already 2 Wikipedia galleries for the images.) I think he is trying to discourage me from continuing my attempts at editing, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. 64.134.153.184 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

unsubstantiated edits by a new page patroller

Hello, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, please forgive me if I place the issue of my concern in the wrong place. I feel I need advice on how to deal with overtly aggressive, not constructive and libelous edits on the article I posted. I welcome any constructive criticism about my article and the ways to improve it, however what the new page controller posted does not help me to improve the article. Moreover, the controller seems to be unaware that he (or she) is being obviously rude and libelous. The controller first posted "biased" tag on my article stating that it was not scientific enough. I replied to the controller's post. Then one hour later (or somewhere around that time), the controller posted "deletion request" note on my article followed by the comment I cite for you below:

"I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"

As I said, the controller's "further review" took less than an hour. He (or she) has little knowledge about the method the article describes. He (or she) calls a work "pseudoscience garbage" without even reading the book about the method or consulting any other serious literature on speed reading.

I kindly request your advice on this issue. The controller's comments on my article are clearly not constructive criticism. Moreover, they are abusive and libelous. Please help me in addressing this issue and removing his (or her) libelous and unsubstantiated comments.

Kind regards, Azbukva

I have removed the word "libelous" from the section title. Please do not make accusations of libel against editors here - please read WP:NLT. This does not affect the need to deal with your request in any other respect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I posted my comments on the delete request page, but I'll repost them here for your convenience:


"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.

I recommend reading this Skeptoid posting: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229 It provides a great overview of the scientific evidence related to speed reading (complete with references to peer reviewed journals.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Another User's Talk Page

On another user's talk page, there was a discussion about uncivil behavior. I made some comments, and the user made a couple accusations regarding me which I felt were unfounded. This user has then deleted my attempt to answer the accusation (telling me all future comments by me will be deleted). Then I tried to delete all my comments so that my views wouldn't be misrepresented. This was also reverted.

What is left now is the beginning of the conversation with the editor's accusations ending the discussion.

I know that wide discretion is given to people on their talk pages, but is there anything I can do to keep from another editor from selectively displaying comments I made? I would rather all my comments be shown, or none of them.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Buehler?LedRush (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This page used to be more active.LedRush (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You open a topic without identifying who the user is or giving any diffs as to the comments. Do you expect others to search your contributions to figure out what you are complaining about? I started that process, and my assumption is you are upset about User:Fae and his not welcoming your comments on his Talk page, but I don't intend to go any further than that without more elaboration from you as to the problem. As you yourself acknowledge, generally every user has a right to control their own Talk page. (What does "Buehler" mean?)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wanted a general answer on Wikiquette, not an answer on how to deal with something specifically. While you are correct as to the precipitating event, I'd really like to keep this a discussion about general policy/wikiquette, and not get bogged down in my views of Fae's actions specifically.
Yes, I recognize people generally get to control their own talk page. My question is whether it is ok for them to edit threads to make it seem like a conversation has been resolved one way, or whether they can make accusations and then delete your responses, to make it look like you've accepted that argument. My other question is, under those circumstances, can I delete all my comments (meaning, if the user edits my comments, can I choose to delete all of my comments from their user page rather than allow the user to selectively display my comments in a way that I believe misrepresents my views.
("Buehler" is Ferris Buehler from the movie. It just means "is there anyone out there?" or something like that when used as I used it above.)LedRush (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is the forum for discussing what WP:CIVILITY means except if you are reporting an incident and want resolution of that incident (see the instructions at the top of the page). If you want to discuss the policy itself, I suggest you do so on the policy Talk page.
If you want my view, FWIW, short of something that actually violates policy (or WP:OWNTALK), Fae can do what he wants on his Talk page, including the things you claim he's done. If he doesn't like your comments, he can delete them. If he doesn't like part of your comments, he can delete them. If you think the end result is misleading, there's nothing you can do about it. Just move on and forget about it. It is what it is, and it isn't worth much. If (unlikely) you're ever accused of something based on the discussion on Fae's Talk page that you believe he manipulated, the edit history is there for you to defend yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think I am in the right forum for this discussion, and I appreciate your opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You could tell your side of the situation in a thread on your talkpage, including diffs to his page. Makes it easier to keep for future reference and/or use. El duderino (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Very good suggestion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and understanding of WP:RS

Situation being handled at ANI and on user's talk page.   — Jess· Δ♥

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schicagos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been having some trouble with a new editor today, including blatant personal attacks against me and another editor (here and here), and the addition of material sourced to his own personal wikipedia user page (here). I've warned him repeatedly for unsourced additions, personal attacks and edit warring, but his behavior doesn't seem to be improving. I think his personal attacks rise to the level of a temp block, but if someone wants to jump in and talk to him first, that might be helpful too. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Schicagos removed this section shortly after I opened it, and I posted this issue at ANI to request a short block while the matter is discussed. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Judging by Schicagos' edits and reaction to this posting, this discussion maybe best held on ANI.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I commented at Talk:Heptanoic acid‎ and was going to write on his talk, but he's already blocked for a week, so I think this can be closed for the time being. --Six words (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The situation has escalated substantially since I posted this; I was hoping we'd just talk it out and move forward, but that's not what happened. Archiving. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

21 Jump Street film being changed improperly and improper conduct towards me

Resolved
 – No movement in several days. Appears to be primarily a content dispute. Should be discussed at the article's Talk page before being escalated. Doniago (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


21 Jump Street film. Rusted AutoParts and others (may be the same person) is all of a sudden changing “is a loose sequel” to “based on”. Both are true but they are saying that it is not a sequel of sorts, is just not true. If they would like to put based on it should not remove “is a loose sequel to” or “is a sequel to” to do so. It is an important fact about the movie that should not be removed. Keep in mind that the fact that the film acts as a sequel to the tv show may even mean there would be no need to put based on. It would be self explanatory.(I am not saying don't put it in) I would be all for it, if it did not remove important information. Rusted AutoParts Used the F word on me then issued me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2012

You've got to be joking. First off, the f word wasn't directed to you. Secondly, if it were a "loose sequel", then it would imply the TV series was a film and thus making this film, 21 Jump Street, to be called 21 Jump Street 2. A film can't be a sequel to a TV series. And lastly, you wre issued a warning because you chose to edit war and undo the change rather than bring the issue to the talk page. RAP (talk) 16:24 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute rather than a matter for WQA. I note there is no discussion at the article's Talk page regarding this matter. May I ask why not? Doniago (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He decided to threaten people with being reported and reverting rather than do the sensible thing. That's why we're here. RAP (talk) 17:47 9 April 2012 (UTC)
That shouldn't stop you from at least trying to discuss it on the talk page. (Side note: Our article on sequels doesn't agree that a film can't be a sequel to a TV series.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The people changing the page (like Rusted AutoParts) to based from serves as a loose sequel were reporting us for vandalism and issuing us warnings before we could talk about it.
Well, if a character was returning from the tv show they were played yet again by the same actor as in the tv show. The two main characters are not the two main characters from the tv show. Michael Bacall. Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise, and Holly Robinson briefly reprise their roles as Tom Hanson, Doug Penhall, and Judy Hoffs [1]

[2] The story was they were revising the undercover program that was used in the 80s. During the TV show. This is a continuation to the tv show. The film is acts as a loose sequel to the tv show. How may we solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As this appears to be a content dispute rather than a matter of wikiquette, the best and first course of action would be to start a discussion at the film's talk page, which I have linked to above, so that editors concerned with the subject can weigh in. If you do not reach the consensus you're hoping for there, you could raise it as a discussion at WT:FILM perhaps, but I'm not sure this matter warrants that level of escalation. Your call.
Please note that receiving a warning on your Talk page is not a "report". You should read the message carefully, review any links, try to avoid the behaviors listed as problematic in the message, and above all make every attempt to communicate regarding the disagreement before turning it into a formal dispute.
As content disputes are not the focus of this board, you're not going to reach a satisfactory resolution regarding the content of the article itself here. I would urge you to avoid any behavior that might be construed as edit warring and, again, discuss the issue at the article's Talk page, where ideally other editors will offer their opinions and a consensus can be reached regarding the contentious material. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada dispute


Within the context of a content dispute at the aforementioned template, there appears to have been numerous breaches of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL by a number of editors, both at the template talk page and at the various other places to where the dispute has spread. The first violation came with the first eruption of the dispute in December 2010 and continued through that phase. Since the dispute was revived in February 2012, other editors became involved and more breaches occurred.

A quick browse through the discussion both at Template talk:Music of Canada#Royal anthem and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada and the associated talk page edit histories (lookng at edit summaries) easily shows how long the breaches have been occurring, their frequency, and who is most consistently doing so. Some specific examples include:

These are unnecessarily contributing to the ongoing inflation of what should be an otherwise routine content dispute. Some coaching for the offending editors (including myself, if need be) a watchful pair of eyes (or more) would be appreciated, so as to reduce friction now and in future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that M is the focus of three editors anger. Notice also that these are long-time editors. Why do you suspect that M is the focus of this? Could be that the anger directed towards him is justifiable due to M's lawyering and otherwise unpleasant behaviour?
As a contributor to resolutions of past disputes here I fully recognize how my behaviour in the above edits appear but there are few editors as unpleasant to work with as the complainant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Response to the edit that caused the edit conflict: The only "coaching" I feel necessary is to M to stop wikilawyering and dragging-out debates until everyone else tires of discussing and he wins by attrition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Diffs showing wikilawyering are necessary.
You're contributing to "dragging-out" the debate as much as I am. (Though, I wonder why you think I've been taking the debate sequentially through the varios steps of the dispute resolution process. Note: resolution process.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that diffs of your behaviour are not required as your behaviour is not being reported. However, if participants would like to see who started all of the new directions, I'm sure that my point would have a foundation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
As for resolution, it seems the only resolution you're happy with is your position, not that of other editors. Another case of wikilawyering. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody's behaviour in particular is being reported. You raised mine and categorised it. It would help substantiate your categorisation if you provided supporting evidence. Otherwise it might be regarded as just an unfounded opinion.
Your theory as to why I've taken the debate sequentially through the various steps of the dispute resolution process seems at least one-sided (if not also in bad faith). Are you still engaged because the only resolution you'd be happy with is the one that favours your position, not that of other editors? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Did you just break WP:AGF? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Haven't you learned yet? It's different when Mies does it. Anyone else is a bad person. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
By asking a question, I don't believe so. But, the question asked if you do what you accused me of; so, you tell us if WP:AGF was broken or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You'll have to excuse me while I attempt to understand what you wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This sort of behaviour is not particularly civil, but summarizes the feelings of the other editors. It's certainly not a violation of WP:NPA. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Would be best if we could get a new group of people to look over the debate - without input from the old parties and see what conclusion a new group of people come up with. The old group of people are not able to overcome the personal conflicts that have started over this (from the past) and new editors are needed to look over the sources and arguments.Moxy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That's very optimistic, however when it was last debated on the Canada talk page, voices against were many and clear, but were ignored. So I'm not sure how bringing new voices to the table will change the outcome. However, this is the incorrect forum for discussing that option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No project members other than myself, who is involved in the dispute, have bothered to enter the discussion. Since official mediation has been requested, shall we close the discussion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

request to stop personal attacks

I considered the quote from the Common Rail talk page to be a personal attack, so I notified the editor in his talk page (as recommended by WP:NPA). His impolite response continued the personal attack, so I request that this be investigated please.1292simon (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry. Where are the diffs of the personal attacks? I See
"shows such a lack of knowledge about the topic" and
"you obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter"
WP:NPA doesn't deal with this sort of thing. Was there something specific you had in mind?
This is the closest which essentially denigrates American youth in what is almost an "ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". However he seems to think that the other editors lack WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter, and that may be a case of not assuming good faith.
So what specifically do you want us to look at? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought the Gran Turismo references were in violation of "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". 1292simon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
So you report the activities without stipulating which activities. You let me go on a fishing trip and then after I indicate there may be a mild case you agree with me. OK. I've notified the editor, but I suspect that this isn't going anywhere unless you can refute his evidence on the talk page. It's one thing to be discussing facts and then be told you're a not a subject matter expert, it's something entirely other to not be discussing facts and be told that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Walter, thanks for looking into it. Sorry that I described it badly which made it harder for you to investigate. I was trying to follow WP:NPA policy (ie not engage the editor in the article Talk page, just leave a polite message in his talk page, only reported it once I considered it to have occurred more than once. Again, sorry for causing you hassles 1292simon (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to want to discuss so I left a note on his talk page requesting that he focus on content and not contributors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for your help. 1292simon (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A concerning matter.



The user TheDarkLordSeth has made claims of operating with an aggressive bias, misrepresentation, accusations of lying, and operating in bad faith. It all began with an error I noticed on the article space in which the same person is listed as both a 'he' and a 'she' in two separate interviews. During the discussion I let slip a well-marked personal observation on the similarity of the statements as reported by various outlets to the witnesses identity. When I admit I am wrong I elaborate why I was wrong with evidence as to which identified witness caller it was and redisplay the critical thinking in what looked like WP:OR. I also state that the credibility of the witness testimony was questioned by AC360 immediately following the interview and critical responses from the show itself, newspapers and police statements which counter the witnesses statements on the interview as being contrary to known information. While I did not mention it myself, I trying to adhere to WP:BLPPRIMARY because the selected witness paraphrased was not neutral and omitted the controversy surrounding those claims. Since he continues to attack me and another editor named Avanu whenever something reflects better on Zimmerman. The full and lengthy discussion can found here. [20] Fills this discussion.[21] And another third major section which broke into further discussion about me here: [22]

I've previously discussed the matter on his talk page and attempted to explain my feelings about his personal attacks and clarify my argument made by using the source which presents information about the contradictions and issues raised during the interview with that guest. I post diffs showing I am not biased. [23] His response. [24] Where I mention my feelings on the personal attacks. [25] His dismissal of the validity of my arguement and assertion that he doesn't care about my feelings. [26] Trying to explain why it matters and why I feel that way. [27] His dismissal again. [28] Final attempt to explain the self contradiction is important. [29] Then he deletes it here. [30] Two days of no progress on the talk page, I attempt again to clarify. [31] He claims I am making it up despite it being in the source. [32] Final attempt to point it out from me. [33]

I do not care to argue with this editor endlessly or endure attacks on every post. All I want to do is restore the peace which existed before this. I've twice tried to resolve this on his talk page, but my attempts have failed. The discussion in the talk page has failed and is not the best place for it either. Because of this continuation that is why I am requesting assistance here. Additional note: TheDarkLordSeth made a post on MBisanz's talk page about WP:FORUM, MBisanz disagreed. May I notify this on MBisanz's talk page as he is an admin who responded to TheDarkLordSeth about my post? I do not want to be accused of WP:Canvassing, but he was a party to the interaction

I take it I'm supposed to post here as well. Feel free to delete if I'm not to take a part in this process. First of all, I'm curious about where I ever used the phrase "aggressive bias" or accused him of lying. I don't remember at all where I said "you're lying." I'm sure the accuser could kindly provide the necessary diffs for his allegations. Second, I'd like to point out that the conflict already moved on by now. We're actually working on it from the start under a section in the Talk page. Third, my objection started with this post: [34] I saw a clear sign of using the Talk page as a forum to evaluate the information in the sources rather than the sources themselves. Two other members agreed with me [35] [36] pointing out that we shouldn't abuse our role as an editor. Chris actually accused others of attacking him as well [37] so I'm a little touched that I'm the one that's focused here. Though, it was mostly me who pursued the discussion on not introducing our own arguments to the article. If you read the "Anonymous eyewitness on AC360" thread on the Talk page you'd see that it's like a forum thread where people are throwing ideas about witness based on their perception of what's logical and what's reasonable. I even tried to address his points and raised an issue with an other witness [38] to see his reaction which he kindly ignored. After that point I no longer assumed good faith. I also read the sources he posted which is how I realized that he was making stuff up. I asked him to kindly quote the sections [39] which he kindly dismissed it. Now, we can all behave as if the Talk page is a blog page but we shouldn't. We can't start dissecting information to use them against each other. The example I always gave was that if a witness involved in a case stated that Earth is flat in his testimony then our job is to say "the witness X stated that Earth is flat" and not try to refute this statement because it sounds illogical to us. That's what I and some other members felt about Chris's and some of Avanu's posts. I believe that's the essence of the matter. We're working on the edits now and I'm genuinely trying to understand what he wants to add. So, if anyone can tell me the point of this I'd appreciate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
As requested. You accuse me of lying with comments like, "Let's not make stuff up, shall we? Your link doesn't even say what you say it says." [40] Though I'll focus on the matters of bias for now. First instance which begins it all. [41] Another. [42] Again. [43] Accusation of Avanu's bias. [44] Again on Avanu. [45] Another bias claim. [46] Though this response sums up the disconnect in our views of Wikipedia nicely. "Second, we're not here to spoon feed people. We're here to convey information not to explain it. So, we say that the funeral director said that he didn't see any bruises on Martin's body. Readers are free to read the whole article and find the contradicting findings from different sources themselves." [47] He doesn't care if the material has conflicting information he wants to represent a selective portion of a primary statement. Even the contradictory statement comes from the source itself. Even after Avanu links to WP:ABOUT and WP:Wikipedia in brief he continues to contest the matter. Avanu's post. [48] His reply. [49] Avanu's comment. [50] Accusation of pressing bias as noted before. [51] While the discussion itself is easier to read then all these diffs, I will if requested post many more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not gonna comment on accusation of "lying" as the quotes speak for themselves. Second, I'd like to point out that in this particular one [52] I'm not claiming that Avanu is biased but I'm asking why he wrote "Potential bias" in the edit summary section of his previous post. So, please read more carefuly before accusing me. Third, I asked you to show where I accused you of operating with aggressive bias. I never rejected that I accused you of bias. It took me a while to actually make such a claim though and I was not the first one to make that claim about you even in this particular case. The fact that you're focusing on me is quite touching. Fourth, Avanu posting those links doesn't really end the discussion on his claim that we should evaluate what the sources (witness interview footage) say and try to use them accordingly (pointing out the holes in their stories) even if we're citing them for what the witness testimony says. Once again, the links of diffs you provide after that point is not about me claiming that Avanu is biased but about me referring to the "undue material and bias" phrase that Avanu himself used initially. You're accusing me of harrasment and I can only ask you to present these diffs accurately. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkSethLord has numerous warnings from admins and other users about civility on his talk page and archive 1. Could someone please offer some advice on how to proceed? I have been avoiding discussion with this user in the mean time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My past, mostly from 2 years ago, is not relevant this issue. My attempt to address ChrisGualtieri's concerns have been ignored and dismissed by him in the Talk page of the article.[53] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I just realize the use of the term "numerous warnings" of civility as well. In my talk page, more precisely the archive page, I have three admins making warnings about civility. All these warnings are about a single edit conflict (my first and last one) I had two years ago. I believe it is important to accuse people accurately and not use such sensational language. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
They are numerous and they are for more then one edit. You attacked editors and were topic banned from the Armenian genocide section, and were warned by one user prior on your talk page. When you were blocked you were warned for your incivility by the admin. Dougweller pointed out others as well, not a single edit, but several. Edward J. Erickson aside as well. For the latest, I've warned you and other editors have warned you. Your own responses here are also uncivil because you are attacking me under accusing you accurately when by all accounts you have had a history of it. This article section has no responders, but I'll wait it out some more, I want an end to this issues, but it seems you do not. Accusing another editor of lying is one of the reasons I started this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The warnings by four admins (I counted three before and I apologize for that) KillerChihuahua, Dougweller, PhilKnight, and Ryan Postlethwaite are all about the same edit conflict that started with reverting the same revert 9 times by me which they gave me a topic ban afterwards two years ago. On the case of Edward J. Erickson, we actually have an other editor calling me a clown which turned out to be a Edward J. Erickson himself who, I talked to in real life, appreciated my concern. On this particular case where you're accusing me, I've already given a sufficient explanation above and I do not appreciate that you're misrepresenting my past to make a case here. As I said before, "the quotes speak for themselves" about the accusation of lying. I never accused you own lying. I never used the word "lie" because I don't know your intent for making a nonfactual statement about a source you used. This case now turned from your accusation of my alleged incivility to your incivility about my profile. I don't appreciate that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Iterated personal attacks

[54] clear personal attack

[55] clear personal attack

[56] removal of obvious adjective with absurd claim that "radical" is "OR" when referring to the "Radical right"

[57] He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!

[58] snark on other articles

[59] further snark about yet another editor accusing him of "projection"

[60] accusing an editor of deliberately misrepresenting policy

[61] You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly

[62] The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. (the edit was to actually quote the source!)

[63] Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party

[64] again about another editor And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning [65] Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately

[66] Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you

[67] That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists

And that is not even going back a full month of the attacks and snark about multiple editors.

He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [68] the cited source is wrong

The Four Deuces has been repeatedly warned about personal attacks - including at [69] his own talk page by another editor entirely just today. Some of the other attackess as well as Paul Siebert have also now been notified. Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem - I have abided by DNFTT enough at this point: Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) , I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC), and on and on and on. Collect (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first example, I responded to an editor who said that the article on Nazism was incorrect on Martin Luther's influence. I responded,
"A footnote quotes an article by Johannes Wallmann in the Lutheran Quarterly (1987) saying, "The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion." Do you have any sources that question this statement about prevailing opinion? TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[70]
Collect then misrepresented my remarks in three separate postings:
"...All of which is somewhat in countervention to your assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[71]
"...My first comments were about TFD's poorly chosen "claims."... I trust you noted the sources I provided above (in agreement with you) - that the Catholic basis for anti-Semitism seems quite important, contrary to TFD's assertions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[72]
"...You specifically cited a source as "prevailing opinion" that Luther was the one who is behind modern anti-Semitism.... I provided substantial sources (note Paul's and Kim's comments thereon) which clearly countered your assertion about prevailing opinion....Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"
Collect imisrepresents my posting by saying that I made claims or assertions, when I merely mentioned the sources for the information in the article. I certainly did not cite a source as prevailing opinion, but cited a source that made a statement about prevailing opinion. This attempt to associate editors with the opinions expressed in sources they provide creates a battleground atmosphere. The result is to confuse other editors and start an argument that detracts from article improvement. Note that a discussion about Nazism, Martin Luther, Protestants, Catholics and anti-Semtism is likely to attract strong opinions and Collect is attempting to stir up a hornet's nest, and create discord on the talk page rather than improvement of the article. Collect has a pattern of similar behavior accross a range of articles.
TFD (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the next example, Collect says, "Again you assert that anyone to the right of the Republican Party is "radical" which is absurd.... Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[73] Of course I said no such thing and Collect is again misrepresenting me as he has done continually throughout the discussion on that page. TFD (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Examine the edit:
[74] in order to have the first sentence of an article read:
The radical right consists of American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties.
How can anyone read that as not saying that anyone to the right of political parties is "radical"? Note that TFDs edit was to remove "radically" from the sentence, so the intent is crystal clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The term "radical right" was coined by Daniel Bell, {Martin Lipset]] and others to describe groups to the right of the Republican Party, and is the most commonly used term, although some writers reject it. You are aware of this because you posted extensive comments on the talk page and it was repeatedly explained to you. (See archives.[75]) and voted to have the article deleted. You throw a loop by claiming both that these groups are not racial yet adding to the lead that they are. TFD (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the next example, I removed "radically" from the lead of an article with the notation "Remove OR".[76] Collect had added the term description which does not appear in sources, hence is original research. Certainly not a personal attack. TFD (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence is unsourced - so how can adding "radically" to a sentence which starts with "Radical" be OR? Amazing! Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Re Collect: A few of the comments could have been phrased a bit more politely. However, pointing out differences of opinion is not a personal attack, but a necessary part of any robust discussion. In my experience, you do indeed seem to suffer from reading things out of context and interpreting them strongly flavoured by a particular world view and preconceived notion that is often at odds with academic consensus. As far as I'm concerned, if you continue to argue your point of view, you must accept criticism of your arguments. We can "tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it", but you cannot get a free path by claiming hurt from legitimate if sometimes forceful argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
TFD also attacks other editors, StSch -- not just me, and this is an ongoing problem of his, noted by others. Attacking the messenger seems quite odd here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how anyone can treat Collect, whether you lack basic reading comprehension or are being deliberately obtuse, your continued misrepresentation of other editors' statements is very annoying and a disservice to other editors and I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing and That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists as simply "robust discussion"! Collect (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been on the receiving end of Tdf's barbs on several articles i edit. [77] The source was an encyclopedia from 1901, which I supplied the page number. To this day the mention of this early National Socialist is not included in the article about such. "The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)" Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You were pushing your theory that nazism is a form of socialism by citing an encyclopedia from 1901 (years before the Nazi Party was formed.) The result was long discussions but no changes to the article. In another case you found a 19tb century re-print of an 18th century book, where the typesetter had misspelt a synonym for scholasticist as "socialist", then claimed you had a copy of the original in a castle in the Czech Republic and that it really did say socialist, although that made no sense in the context of the writing. That particular pointless exercise drew in a number of editors. TFD (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was referring to a private library in the building, not castle, where I live in Budapest Hungary, not Czech Rep., but the same book exist in the National Library as well[78]. You seem intent on excluding mention of an early national socialist from the article on Nazism, which is fine, if you did not also argue to keep the redirect from national socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of personal attacks is at The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the SPI case specifically resulted in an IP registering is not sockpuppetry. meaning TFD knowingly accused a registered editor of sockpuppetry who had been cleared of that charge - which, last I checked, is a "personal attack" Cheers. Can anyone doubt that such an accusation after the editor was cleared is an impermissible personal attack? Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a reply to another editor at ANI who had written, "you (falsely) accused me of being a Sock Puppet, and as soon as only a couple of days ago you were (again falsely needless to add) accusing me of being a dynamic IP, which sounds a pretty serious allegation to me, even though you knew full well that the IP in question could not have been me".[79] The closing administrator at SPI wrote, "I'm closing this for now, as ERIDU has admitted that the IPs are theirs".[80] Collect should be aware of this because he participated in the SPI discussion. TFD (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no actionable complaint here. The provided diffs show strong but not destructive behavior. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Since my name has been mentioned here, I would like to make some explanations. Yes, I advised (not "warned") TFD to modify his post, however, this my step was dictated by the desire to protect this good faith user from possible Collect's attack, which, as anticipated, would follow. This thread serves as an indication that that my prediction was totally correct. Collect is really a problem editor, who repeatedly misinterpret reliable sources and the viewpoints of other users (including myself). Therefore, I totally endorse the main thesis of TFD posts addressed to Collect, although I strongly disagree with their form. TFD should have to be more polite.
In connection to that, I hope that, since the problem is not with TFD, but with Collect, our community will advise Collect to seriously think about his editorial pattern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect continually misrepresents what other editors have said and continues to do so here. The result is lengthy unproductive discussion on talk pages. Also, it is discouraging to editors who wish to make positive contributions. Another pattern is the shotgun approach of providing numerous references with little or no explanation of their relevance or context. That requires time from conscientious readers. Could explain why he does this and how he plans to proceed in future. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect is canvassing for this discussion: User:R-41,[81] Paul Siebert,[82] Lionelt,[83] and ERIDU-DREAMING[84] Collect is in violation of the behavioral guideline which says, "Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive.... Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions.... Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." TFD (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Absurd - especially since notification is required here if a person is mentioned. Or do you think I notified Paul in order for him to lace into you? LOL -- REQUIRED notifications are not Canvassing. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this after looking for a similar report that I have just recommended be moved here - So I will comment - all the diffs at the top of the report are of User:The Four Deuces demeaning repeatedly User:Collect. Such repeated demeaning comments, repeated and over a length of time are a form of bullying that are clearly a form of personal attack. - they are some awful examples, but its the repeated and continues method of the attack over a period of time that is the biggest problem - I see the user is wiki lawyering his way here and has failed even for a split second to admit his comments were out of order. I would like to ask User:The Four Deuces, what is so hard about admitting your comments were rude and demeaning and you shouldn't have been so rude and you will be more polite in future? - Youreallycan 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I can see both sides of this issue. OTOH, the articles involved are controversial and often generate heated comment. OTOH, I agree with YRC that TFD's principal problem is the cumulative nature of his comments. Thus, I propose that TFD doesn't have to go so far as to admit his comments were "rude and demeaning" but he could agree to rein in his comments in the future. At the end of the day, these sorts of comments are simply not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although you usually have problems with your reading comprehension you amazingly seem to have understood the simple point I was iterating. (that is an example of how its done, comment by comment a user repeatedly demeans a user with snides and low level insults) if User:The Four Deuces will at least see the problem with repeatedly commenting in such a way in regards to a single user and will then agree to rein in his comments in the future that would be a great starting point at reconciliation and good faith collaboration moving forward. Youreallycan 18:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what a sly way to get in a personal jab, and on WQA no less. Why don't you be a good fellow and strike it?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Its not a personal jab at all , and I am sad to see that your interpretation of our relationship is so low. Its an example of how such is done, and not personal to you at all. - Its an example of all the diffs at the top of this report and you immediately ask me to strike it - , if you focus on the report what will you ask the reported user to do? Youreallycan 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I wish we weren't airing this here, who is the you in "although you usually have problems with your reading comprehension you amazingly seem to have understood the simple point I was iterating"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Its a fictional example of the actions and diffs presented of the person being reported - why you think it is something I would say to you after all our interaction on and off wiki is beyond me and as I said, saddens me. - Youreallycan 19:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I accept YRC's explanation as to what he meant, I think it's a major stretch to read it that way. Must be my usual lack of reading comprehension. After his explanation, I attempted to obtain permission from him to remove our side discussion, but he declined. That prompted this hopefully final comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a long history of dealing with Youreallycan under his previous identity as account, as has Collect, which he failed to mention, and notice that he has been blocked three times this year for "Personal attacks or harrassment". TFD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
And what sort of horsefeathers are you purveying with that comment? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Its all about others problems then is it, you have acted completly correct. No response to this comment above, "if User:The Four Deuces will at least see the problem with repeatedly commenting in such a way in regards to a single user and will then agree to rein in his comments in the future that would be a great starting point at reconciliation and good faith collaboration moving forward." ? - Youreallycan 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In the first example provided by Collect I was responding to his misrepresentation of my posting, which he falsely said was a "claim" or "assertion" by me. Why do you think Collect does this and what approach should other editors take? TFD (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not looked at Collects comments prior to the diffs that are reported here. I think users should attempt to take as friendly as possible approach and treat all users as friends - rather say, "please allow me to explain myself better" than say (as some of the diffs presented in this report), "your educational standard is repeatedly failing to understand my message" - You will be the winner and better still, all around you will benefit. Youreallycan 20:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In response to your specific question, you could have said what you just said - tackle what you thought was Collect's false claim, rather than go on about obtuse and reading comprehension, which wasn't constructive. In addition, you've picked one example out of many, which ignores YRC's valid point that there is a cumulative effect to your comments that cannot be explained away by allegedly debunking one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect has applied a shotgun approach taking comments out of context and going back years. He continually misrepresents what I and other editors say, which is very annoying and disruptive to talk pages. None of his examples stand up. Take for example his third posting, where he complains about my edit summary, "(Undid revision 487202500 by Collect (talk) Remove OR)". He had inserted text that was not supported by sources and in fact misrepresents the subject. In fact Collect has continually misrepresented the article over the last year. See for example his discussion thread, "major problems": "This article is entirely synthesis and original research, presented in a non-neutral fashion, using coatrack to a vast extent, using absolutely zero sources verifiable by users, and relying almost entirely on a single source."[85] He then tagged the article, saying, "(seems full of "original research" and synthesis as a start, relying almost entirely on one source, no internet verifiablility whatsoever)"[86] At the time the article relied on thirteen sources. Notice too the double standard. It's fine if Collect calls something OR, but a personal attack if someone else does.
Take his next example, "He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!" He links to where I wrote, "Insulting other editors is unhelpful". It was in reply to an editor who wrote, "I looked at the Talk page for the far left politics article, and it seems we have a few of the usual suspects using editorial tricks to block information which makes the Left look bad and the Right look good."[87] Could you explain what you find unmeasured about my reply?
TFD (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, you apparently just don't get it or your dislike of Collect is too pronounced for you to be conciliatory. The fourth diff you note was intended partly as irony. In other words, you tell another editor it is not helpful to insult other editors (true), and yet you (arguably) insult other editors yourself. This board is not intended to work out the the many content conflicts between you and Collect - it is intended to get editors to respect other editors in their interaction with them. What would be so hard about telling Collect that you will keep the personal stuff out of your future comments and just focus on issues? What do you want, some sort of no admission of liability, like in legal settlements? Come on, YRC is right about another thing, you will benefit from being more flexible and less confrontational.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Here by the way is a selection of comments that Collect made recently at Talk:Radical right before I complained about his general behavior rather than addressing specific edits.

  • that is insufficient for your edit war to insert this material
  • absurd position, as anyone can see
  • it is an abuse of Wikipedia to so grossly misuse a source utterly
  • This is an abuse of how cites are supposed to work
  • but next time I see such a gross abuse of a source, I suspect it will not go to NOR/N
  • Um -- ever read "Alice in Wonderland"?
  • the perversion of the source is improper.
  • It is a perversion of WP:V and WP:RS top so grossly misuse a source
  • By the way, when making egregiously errant claims
  • Courser's direct quote making it clear that he does not consider the Tea Party to be "radical right" is clearly thus acceptable to you, of course.
  • As usual you insist on misusing sources... and I suppose to you, who KNOWS the TRUTNH, the NYT must be wrong. In fact, every source is wrong except for what you know is the [[WP:TRUTH}truth]]. Has it occurred to you that what you know to be the truth, just might be wrong?
  • Meanwhile, I hope readers will see that the mainstream sources do not make the claims TFD here asserts he knows are true.
  • Sorry TFD -- when one totally misquotes a source ofr misleadingly uses a source to imply what it actually does not only not imply, but contradicts, is always going to be "strange" to someone.
  • I fear you are too sure of the WP:TRUTH... that when your chosen source states the opposite that you blame the messengers of that fact.
  • What an amazing claim -- when I use the source you presented and used it honestly, you now think Courser is a minority viewpoint! LOL!
  • weird to the nth power!
  • The term is a Humpty-Dumptyism exercise at best, and a fount of POV-pushing at worst
  • is nuts.
  • An unabated misuse of Lipset.
  • As for the silly suggestion

I have tried to work cooperatively with Collect, but he has a confrontational approach and objects to including opinions in articles with which he disagrees. TFD (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

i have found several comment where you unilaterally determine a talk page comment is not helpful, therefore disruptive. this may intimidate some editors from joining the talk page discussion for fear of making a less than productive comment as determined by you. perhaps you could withhold your opinion of others and their comments some. many of your comments cite wp:policy, like or, or npov, why not shift focus from "hall monitor" to that of mere participant. after a while you will be noticed by others and nominated for admin, once you are an admin, your help would be received with less friction. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect writes, "He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [88] the cited source is wrong". As one can see from the discussion thread, the article misrepresented a quote from the Bible, Leviticus 20:13. Another editor said, "The cited source states otherwise" to which I replied, "The cited source is wrong." The source provided was an article in the Daily Herald.[89] Another editor later added a Fox News which quoted the biblical sentence correctly.[90] I did not assert that I "know[] a lot". Sources may be wrong, the Bible sentence is well known and easily checked, and the sentence was misstated in the article. TFD (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Two bald men fighting over a comb". One of them would do well to read and reflect on WP:boomerang and also the Behavior that is unacceptable/Do not misrepresent other people section of WP:TPNO. Writegeist (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Try to not chase me again, WG. [91] shows him using a "mugshot" in a BLP - reverting my proper removal, [92] shows him removing a POV tag, [93] shows his ongoing snark about YRC, [94] as nauseam dating back to his continuing content on his talk page posted [95], [96] his idea of "civility" (I think calling an editor a "wanker" is less than civil?), and his massive screed at [97] where he interpolates his opinions freely about me - and has kept it on his talk page for three years. And drops in here, of all amazing things. And specializes primarily in Palin and Buster7 <g>. Cheers, but the "boomerang" might even head your way, WG. You have also namecalled, shown long-term animus to others, and retained attack material for three years on your user talk page. Collect (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • BlueRobe, you should read about the subject. In fact the whole point of Wikipedia is that people like yourself, who are ignorant of topics, may read articles and elucidate themselves. Other editors are not here in order to provide private tutorials. TFD (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So my question is why you continue to place objections you are well aware are insulting to everyone's intelligence, including your own. TFD (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Although you may believe that you are striking a blow for your version of libertarianism all you are doing is persuading us that your groupuscule is misleading and sacrifices honesty. TFD (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 April 2012
Look out, TFD, they've decided that you're the next target! Yeah, this should be closed as unuseful. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep -- your idea of a constructive comment is Yes, you killed your opposition, so now you can whitewash the article -- accusing an editor if killing another editor really shows a grown-up attitude. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
What a disruptive WP:BATTLE comment - your comment creates an us and them mentally and then asserts that one side has decided deliberately to target a user. - your comment fails completely in all constructive ways. - Youreallycan 14:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comments have not helped much either. You are totally ignoring the disruptive nature of Collect's misrepresentation of other editors comments and sources. What I see is frustration from TFD from numerous attempts of dealing wit Collect and their misrepresentations. Not to mention the canvassing, which is listed above. You don't purposely list editors going back weeks, months and in Darkstar's case over a year and a half, without canvassing motives. Is this WQA or an RFC/U? I tried ignoring this silliness, so it could vanish as it should, there is nothing here that warrants any action. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, I do not note any interaction with you at all. And almost all the diffs I gave are within the single past month making your assertion that I went back very far a tad weird. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I never asserted that we have had interactions. Your response is yet another attempt by you to misrepresent the situation. Your addition of ERIDU-DREAMING(which was resolved more than a month ago) and Lionelt(someone who is in charge of a conservative project and has many page watchers), who is not even mentioned in any of your links, is a clear attempt at canvassing in order to stack more editors who would take "your side" in any dispute with TFD. Perhaps this issue should be moved to ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the part on this noticeboard REQUIRING people who are mentioned to be notified? If I did NOT notify people, I can be sure that some would attack me for that as well -- so I OBEYED THE RULES. Cheers - now can we get off the inapt charge? Collect (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Cannot fully agree. I think some action is needed. As you correctly noted, TFD impoliteness is a result of their frustration from numerous attempts of dealing with Collect. That explains their behaviour, but it cannot serve as an excuse. TFD should be advised to be more polite, simply to save our time: we could use the time we have wasted here much more productively. However, by writing that, I do not imply that the main problem here is with TFD. In actuality, it is Collect who is a primary reason for this incident. Collect frequently misinterprets what reliable sources say and what other user writes, and it is hard to tell if that is just a problems with his reading comprehension or he is doing that deliberately (I believe I can write that here, because this thread is devoted not to Collect's and TFD's contributions, but to their behaviour). Therefore, I think it would be correct to warn Collect about the need to treat the texts written by others more seriously.
In summary, whereas TFD's behaviour insults some concrete persons, Collect's behaviour is an insult of common sense, and he definitely deserves a warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Shuw me where I engaged in name-calling, Paul. In one month, TFD repeatedly did so - and yet you now seem to deny the clear warning you gave him about doing so <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
An excellent illustration to my thesis about your problems with reading comprehension. The main theses of my previous post was that TFD engaged in unneeded name-calling as a result of Collect's misbehaviour, who, being formally polite, repeatedly and persistently misinterprets the words of other. As a result, Collect responded with the request to provide the examples of name-calling from his side. This is exactly the same behavioural pattern that caused TFD's frustration.
Collect, you have serious problems with understanding what other says, and that your behaviour is much more insulting for reasonable users that direct insults. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect, you said that I repeatedly engaged in name-calling in one month. That is inaccurate and you have provided no evidence for that statement.
Also, could you please explain the meaning of your comment above: "He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [98] the cited source is wrong". [The discussion was about whether a source had correctly quoted a well-known sentence in the Bible, Leviticus 20:13]. TFD (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The entire' cavil about Bible translations was whether "those" refers to "men" or to "men and women" in the translation. IMHO, the distinction is not worth a farthing, but some appeared to regard the word as a matter of life and death as to what is "right." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not true. TFD (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is recent example of Collect misstating facts when he discusses article text on a discussion page. The text follows favorable opinions expressed by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. I present the article text and the discussion thread set up by Collect.

Article text: "Academic and critic, Noam Chomsky, has compared the Tea Party movement to "late Wiemar Germany." He says that while the Tea Party members have "real grievances" and shouldn't be mocked, the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks."[226]
Discussion thread: FORA.tv RS for contentious claim: Is a "collection of videos" and is no more RS than Youtube is for contentious claims (to wit - that the TPM the movement has scapegoated real problems, such as stagnating real wages, to liberals much like how the Nazis directed blame for problems in Germany to the "Jews and the Bolsheviks) which likely hits Godwin's Law squarely. Ought this edit be removed? Collect (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
That is an incorrect description. Fora is used as a source for opinions expressed by Noam Chomsky. It is a reliable source for what Chomsky said. TFD (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Go to RS/N for that claim -- in the meantime, the opinion from Chomsky, invoking Nazism, is UNDUE as well here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[99]

TFD (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the fact that I find calling people directly or indirectly "Nazis" is relevant how here? Or are you arguing that calling people "Nazis" is not "contentious"? What exactly does this post try to show? Do you elide the long passage following the Nazi accusation? Presented here so folks can jusdge just how evil I am and how balanced the article is with the lone mention of Brooks followed by aht Nazi accusation and then this:
In an April 2009 New York Times opinion column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey."[3][unreliable source] The same month, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class"[4][5]
Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is a weight issue, then you should have mentioned that in your post, rather than claiming it was a sourcing issue and representing that the article compared the Tea Party movement to Nazis. Now you are implying that I have stated a position on the neutrality issue, which I have not. TFD (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is another recent example of Collect's non-collegial writing:

First - I only noted the current court result. Second, I had thought Russia during WW II was indeed Communist, but if you say it was not Communist during WW II, then I assume you know the "truth." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[100]

TFD (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh -- you posted [101]
What do you think we should put in? The Katyn massacre is already in the article and Russia is not a Communist regime. TFD (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I consider my response quite reasonable as an answer to a point which had no relevance to my post. BTW, do you plan to stalk my every post on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're going to dish out the harsh words in disagreement, then you better be prepared to take some back in stride. And ending disagreeable posts with the incongruous "Cheers" comes off as more than a bit disingenuous. El duderino (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"Cheers" is common on Wikipedia. Like over 200K times. And I aver that my post made no attack nor was in any way less than civil. Nor even "harsh." Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A false allegation of 'stalking' even in half-jest is not civil. Neither is your overuse of sarcasm when you must know that it can be easily misconstrued, especially here at WQA. You're the one crying foul in this thread because someone else chooses to disagree with you. Heed your own advice and brew some yourself, maybe take a break from arguing so much since you can't handle the heat. El duderino (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Collect, it is clear for every reasonable person that each your new response acts against you. It is in your interests to stop that asap.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, Paul, that's a pretty broad statement, but, in any event, this thread has been going on too long. That in and of itself would be okay if anything constructive was being accomplished, but I don't see it. All I see are analyses of TFD's comments, analyses of Collect's comments, analyses of TFD's comments about Collect's comments, and analyses of Collect's comments about TFD's comments. Venting may have its place as a form of therapy, but it doesn't seem to be working.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The statement might be broad, but I believe my main point is clear, Collect's behaviour on this page successfully refutes his main thesis, namely, that good faith Collect is being insulted and attacked by bad faith TFD. The longer this thread becomes, the more it works against him, so the only reasonable thing he could do is to close this thread as an initiator. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of TFD's editing, and I think he is highly prone to inserting his POV in articles. But, personal attacks? I just don't buy it. Most of the points indicated above are hardly worthy of being called "attacks" or "bullying". Perhaps a bit snarky, but hardly worthy of him being subject to any type of discipline.JoelWhy (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This board is not intended to provoke sanctions. It is intended to discuss one editor's complaints that another editor has treated him with disrespect (WP:CIV: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect."). That also means that it doesn't have to rise to the level of a personal attack to be a legitimate issue to bring here. That said, although I may not agree with your analysis of the situation or Paul's analysis (or anyone else's for that matter), I do agree that the thread has outlived its usefulness. Rather than "close" it, as Paul suggests, my recommendation would simply be for TFD and Collect to stop contributing - it will then die of its own accord.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I proposed to close it because I have no hope that any uninvolved user will have a desire to read all of that. However, your recommendation for TFD and Collect to stop contributing is also a good option.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikistalking, uncivility and ad hominem attacks from Koertefa

Resolved
 – Samofi blocked for topic ban by Fut.Perf. after Samofi reported another editor to WP:AN3. [102] Samofi was blocked for "a long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Involved editors:

I would like to report Koertefa. His discussion is full of despise against editors with different oppinions. This is his last ad hominem personal attack: "This is getting weird. Please, do not waste our time if you do not know what you are talking about." [103]

Very annoying is his wikistalking, he always react shortly after my edits and change my content without propper discussion: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108],...

He is often involved in edit wars, espetialy in national disputes which belongs under WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions rule: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]

Btw I was for similar behaviour topic-baned by Fut.Perf.. --Samofi (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Please, come back after you have read some history books and have a strong argument backed up by sources. Otherwise, I do not see the point of this discussion." this also looks like personal attack. --Samofi (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Before moving forward in an attempt to resolve the problem, I believe Koertefa should respond here. I have not reviewed the matter in full, but I see you did notify Koertefa. Giving that Samofi is under a topic-ban, this could be complicated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not have too much to say. Samofi is a disturbing user and it's not the first time he reported me (but, I am glad that this time he notified me, as well). Despite his topic-ban, he usually edits articles related to Hungary and Slovakia (history, biographies, etc.) and makes provocative contributions, talk page comments (often based on half-truths). After a while, this usually makes the other editors upset, but when they express their disappointments with the contra-productive approach, they get reported. Regarding the accusations: "wikistalking"? it's called "watchlist"; "uncivility"? I tried to be polite; "personal attack"? I just expressed my opinion that I did not see the point of that particular discussion. Please, take a look at our contributions, too; and decide for yourselves. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Samofi has been blocked for breaching topic ban. I will close this now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

General hostility from User:Eddaido, with edit-warring and attacks

Eddaido (talk · contribs)

These two recent exchanges with SamBlob (talk · contribs) are unacceptable. Describing other editors as "Dogging" and their contributions as "a nasty mess" is not acceptable behaviour per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah,_Lady_Docker&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_%28marque%29&diff=prev&oldid=483972348
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=prev&oldid=484053946
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bentley_8_Litre&action=history

I placed a warning here User_talk:Eddaido#Attacks_on_other_editors_in_edit_summaries after the Bentley stuff, but I see that he's back to it again today on the Lady Docker page.

I've past history with this editor myself, with similar attacks and edit warring, but nothing was resolved Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive179#User:Eddaido_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_declined.29 It seems a typical behaviour for this editor that they will see an issue or warning like this, but their response to it will be a non-sequitur like "Fascinating and weighty stuff", rather than any attempt to engage.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Further examples of Eddaido's incivility:
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Resolved
 – User blocked 48hrs. --Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)



The user ElliotJoyce has, from today begun systematically going through my edits (over many months, even years) targeting them for removal. This is a clear campaign of intimidation and harassment. Often my edits are on politically and historically sensitive pages, about slavery, wars, rebellions etc. ElliotJoyce has accused me of being 'anti-European' when, for example, I have changed racially-charged, colonial terminology such as 'tribal' to the more neutral and accurate 'local'. I have warned this user to stop dogging me. Ackees (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing this as resolved as user is blocked, although you are encouraged to report any repeat behavior. If are are unhappy with blocking circumstances you should contact the blocking admin.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement (mostly) based on recriminatory Bad-Faith accusations

Involved editors:

Involved Pages:


  • Summary

The thing is User:Griswaldo has been accusing me (Brendon) of being a "Veteran Duck" and also of creating a "single-purpose account" (diff) first on my talk-page, and later in his talk-page. He wants me to disappear (diff) from Wikipedia based on that sheer presumption that I'm simply "too knowledgeable" to be a newcomer. I told him that I don't like his approach because it was primarily predicated upon bad-faith assumptions and to leave me alone (diff). Yet he has dogmatically clung onto his belief. I refrained from using any impolite word against him knowingly. Yet, he was totally against my behavior for which I've submitted clarifications multiple times along with "if apologies". FYI, I gained my knowledge about WP:POLICIES by visiting Wikipedia for various reasons. Is that my fault here? Could I do more to gain his trust?

[All one has to do is just read the talk pages mentioned above, to understand what is going on]

  • What I did wrong?

Maybe It's my reaction/retorts that upset him. I really don't know.

He claims that I was assailing people with personal comments in other discussions about non-related topic, but in his list (he has a list of my "personal comments" on his talk page) I couldn't find many personal attacks.

He also claims that I'm "quacking like a veteran duck" (I didn't like the tone even a bit and moreover the essay that he was referring to was WP:DUCK and it contains personal opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. That's why I am not so pleased with Griswaldo's comments).

Perhaps my fault was that I asked Belorn on his user-talk page to tell me how to report somebody for harassing me, albeit I didn't take anybody's name. It was just a precautionary measure. Because I am really not a "veteran".
[I hang around Wikipedia whenever I'm free. That's why I know some things about Policies (not much!)]

  • What have I done to try and fix the situation before reporting it here?
  1. I tried to calmly sort the issue out, although he didn't seem willing at all.
  2. I gave him "if apologies" (although I was unsure if it was truly me who needed to apologize).
  3. I tried to dispel his doubts

(I don't know if I tried hard enough though).

  • What I hope to achieve here?

I believe vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and thus I want to gain his trust that I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent.

Regards,
 Brendon ishere
04:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about above

Brendon, why is it that you've chosen not to use the large amounts of eye-catching formatting that you have been using everywhere else (to the great annoyance of other editors) here? Is it because you know it's annoying and you don't want to annoy people here when you're asking for help?Griswaldo (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You claim "I'm not here on Wikipedia with any bad intent," but what I'm suggesting, quite clearly, is that you're doing something that is against the rules. One could genuinely think that socking is not ill intentioned and one could also cleverly believe that no one could prove otherwise, but the fact remains that its the behavior itself that is against the rules and not the intentions behind it. So maybe it would be better for you to directly address the supposed behavior instead of your intentions. So?Griswaldo (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The explicit/implicit presuppositions don't seem really helpful to me.

See, here I need not catch anybody's eyes because my personal problems are unimportant as compared to the demands to ignore paramount Pillars of Wikipedia. What happens to me after this discussion is really immaterial (as it only serves personal interests) but what happens after that RfC is far more important (because it will probably impact on the Wikipedia community collectively). Brendon is here 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely why your clearly illicit editing of the RfC is completely against core Wikipedia principles and against the community's trust in the notion that the decisions we make about our project are made as fairly as possible. You're tainting the process. And now you seem to be suggesting that once you've effectively influenced the process who knows what will happen to you. Perhaps you'll just disappear ... just awful.Griswaldo (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would request anybody to visit the pages he is referring to and to see for themselves If I've been extraordinarily illicit (i.e. see if there were some extenuating circumstances or not).

And even if it were true, it won't justify a completely needless bad-faith accusation on my talk-page even after my expression of disapproval for the approach used (this is what we're discussing here).

One crime doesn't justify another. Brendon is here 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. Certain behaviors are only crimes in certain contexts. Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime. If I'm mistaken, if your quacking turns out to be nothing more than a very odd series of coincidences then I'll happily apologize. But it is a well established convention here (indeed its also part of many policies) that vandals, disruptive editors and those who are sock puppeting are not afforded the privilege of hiding behind policies meant to apply to normal law-abiding citizens. For instance 3RR doesn't apply when reverting vandalism, and so on and so forth. I note that you have still not addressed any of my concerns about your behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Approaching someone who is socking about their socking is not a crime." - but doing that without conclusive evidence is Petitio Principii logical fallacy. An obnoxious one, I must say. Brendon is here 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I do have circumstantial evidence. It's presented below. WP:DUCK may just be an essay but it is one that is invoked frequently (by admins), and it is invoked because often there is no material evidence of socking. I see you're getting more joy out of arguing smugly about this than simply proving, or even asserting your own innocence. Add that to the list of behavioral circumstantials -- its typical of rightly accused socks. People who are innocent react quite differently to being wrongly accused. For one they try hard to dispel the accusation, not to evade it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not a sock, man. Come on! Besides "circumstantial evidence" is not "conclusive evidence" that I'm a sock. Furthermore, repeated claims of me being a sock, looks like a gratuitous personal attack here (that's what I'm complaining about). To claim that I've been uncivil as an answer to that (implying that my objection is baseless), would be tu qouque fallacy.
    I guess, you can always start a RfC exclusively for clearing your doubts about my incivility on other pages (apart from your and my talk-pages), but it's not the topic here.
  • Oh I see, are you implying that I'm a sock just because you didn't like my behavior? (It's a question not a statement)
    In that case, your claim is unquestionably hollow. Brendon is here 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • More of the same type of argument which addresses nothing I've said just attempts to dismiss it. Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock of some kind because you baited me with it like a troll does. Comments like these are also more evidence of the fact that you're not new here by the way. Of course given your uncivil behavior its also ironic that you started a request here about someone else.Griswaldo (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"Your incivility lead me to consider the possibility that you were a sock" — really? Wow! How convenient! Brendon is here 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply from Griswaldo

Let's cut to the chase. Brendon is not a newbie who started editing less than a month ago. What gives it away?

  • His immediate knowledge of Wiki formatting (user page, talk page edits, and signature).
  • The way in which he discusses policy. By this I don't simply mean knowledge but a sense of familiarity that comes from prolonged exposure - e.g. [116], [117]
  • Likewise the way in which he discusses Wikipedia in general (often quoting policy while doing it), as if he has prolonged experience with the project and the community and knows what's best for it from that experience - e.g. [118], [119]
  • And most damningly, the fact that he's an SPA who only edits a community discussion. In fact he created his account on the very day that this discussion started!!!

The only area Brendon edits is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and that page is littered with more examples like the ones above, but it's also littered with Brendon's uncivil and battleground behavior. Here are some examples:

  • In one of his first comments he writes: "Even the proposal of such an action seems absolutely disgusting," and "Wikipedia must not mollycoddle pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence)." (Note -- the strikethrough of mollycoddle was in his very original comment, and not a later edit).
  • A day later he added this gem: "If — heaven forbid — any restriction is placed on the free use of any Image solely based on the fear of upsetting some over-sensitive lunatics, it will contravene not only WP:NOTCENSORED, but also other policies namely WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE, etc. Why is this so hard to understand? AFAIK, Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that it has to comply with the quranic embargoes."
  • This type of commentary has continued throughout. Just the other day he wrote this on the talk page: "What's your intent behind bringing this nonsensical drivel into the current discussion?"

In the last example I asked Brendon to be civil to the other editor, and instead of apologizing or striking his comment he simply made excuses. More recently, and just prior to my wising up on what was going on with him he accused me of "trying to" mislead people at the RfC. When I told him that's not WP:AGF, he again did not apologize and made more evasions while referring to my "excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries." Because of the aggressive manner in which he was engaging me and others I actually found myself replying in kind, and deleting my own comment when I realized, quite frankly, that I was most likely being trolled.

Because of what I describe above I went to Brendon's talk page to ask him about the evidence of his Wikipedia experience and about his motives. He has evaded those questions and instead is now insinuating that I'm harassing him. Ever since it was clear that he didn't want me on his talk page the conversation has continued on mine. I want to make it clear also that I did not ask Brendon to dissappear. What I said was conditional: "If you're a community banned user then disappear completely.If you are a topic banned editor then please stop editing the topics you are banned from with a second account. If you have another legitimate account then please stick to using that one. Cheers." Now the fact that he claims I asked him to disappear logically means one of two things. 1) He's misrepresenting what I said or 2) he's actually a community banned editor. Either way it's not good. I also want to add that the reason I approached him in the first place is because this is a serious problem. Community banned and topic banned editors are constantly showing up at various community venues to distort the process. Some of them are just vandals but others have an agenda beyond simply trolling. It needs to stop. And in case anyone believes Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only. It just doesn't happen. When it happens you can bet your bottom dollar that it's a sock puppet.Griswaldo (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Brendon's answers

I'm not going to waste my energy here by writing all the replies again. So, I am copy-pasting my previous explanatory reply below. Please bear with me.

Although I think excessive focus on how (i.e. style and niceties of my rhetoric) rather than What (i.e. content) I express is a tad too much, which in my opinion, is also unneeded at this point and exists with a high degree of negative presumptions, I thank you for giving a chance to clarify my stance as well as those seemingly aggressive assertions (which were anyway quoted out of context).

“Muslim-sympathizers” — What's wrong with that phrase? And didn't I annex a "no offense please" tag behind that also (which you forgot to quote)? I'm assuming that you didn't leave it out intentionally. But still, if it hurt anybody I offer them my most sincere condolences.

“Islamic mumbo-jumbo” - Yes, this might seem a bit aggressive. But again, You didn't write the whole line and to give others a sense of the context I'm going to quote the line, I wrote, "Frankly speaking, if it were not for Islamic mumbo-jumbo, there wouldn't have been any discussion regarding sober depictions of dead people." So I assume you might understand my disgust behind that line too. And also, the stringent practices of Islam don't make any sense logically, that's what I was indicating by "mumbo-jumbo". But is it a crime to express genuine views frankly? I dare say, no. Moving on!

“Over-sensitive lunatics” - This phrase in and out of itself refers to only those who are over-sensitive lunatics. If a person is not one of those “over-sensitive lunatics” it should not hurt him. I referred specially to those who are over-sensitive and also lunatic (I didn't say that pointing towards any other group or person). But you again presumed I did.

“Islamic hyper-sensitivity” - I don't want to sound like a statesman, but every religion has hyper-sensitive people. Islam is no different (has adherents who are more sensitive than what's normally accepted). You must have heard of the Danish cartoon controversy aka Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam just because he made a film which "hurt the sensitivities" of some Muslims. These provide frightened non-Muslims like us with a certain amount of leeway for using phrases like “Islamic hyper-sensitivity”, or even “Over-sensitive lunatics” while pointing towards those who generally fit the description.

If it were a RfC about censorship of the Image of Jesus, I would have probably used phrases like “Christian hyper-sensitivity” (because the demand itself is extremely detrimental to the reliability of an encyclopaedia) but sadly It's not about Image of Jesus but Muhammad.

“Its penchant for gratuitous communal violence” - Wow! You almost made it sound as if I was referring to Islam. I wonder why do you forget to mention the whole line. I wrote, "Wikipedia must not mollycoddle pander to the ever-increasing, unreasonable and incessant demands of any religion (no matter how much is its penchant for gratuitous communal violence). Thank you! :)" I wasn't referring to Islam. Hence, what's so important about these phrases that I used in my comments?

And, Why did you neglect the line where I clearly wrote, "most Muslims are moderate and, with good reason, don't expect everybody else to cater to their views"? [Click here]

"Offending those who come to Wikipedia is not the best path" - Is "censoring information just for the sake of not offending people" the best path for an "encyclopaedia"? I stick to my view. I tell you again, in an encyclopaedia, not sensitivity but verifiability, fidelity to the true nature of information while representation and the quality of information are what count.
If anything, anything at all, clashes with these policies (not to mention, which have been majorly responsible for the free-flow of information without killing the whole enterprise) then I think its better to reject that thing than to reject the policies altogether.

— Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

-- Brendon ishere 03:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I also see now [13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)] that Griswaldo has claimed that I've never apologized for my bad-faith accusation that he was trying to "misguide people", so I present my exact reply and see if I've apologized or not.

"I'm not trying to misguide anyone" - Good, you shouldn't. But from your excessively captious attitude, false-reasoning and chicaneries, I found it hard to come to any other conclusion. However, I didn't mean that you're knowingly trying to misguide people. I meant you are muddying the water and thus people can be misguided because of you (stop picking on phraseology). It did not seem as serious an accusation to me (also, it had nothing to do with good or bad faith)!

Anyways, I'm sorry if it truly hurt you.

BTW, You should know that a harsh accusation of bad-faith is in itself a grave accusation.

— User:Brendon111

I agree, I was brusque. But so were you, Griswaldo. I said "I'm sorry" multiple times. How many times have you apologized for you bad-faith accusations? I think you owe me an apology too. Let's end this right end. I am a peace-loving person and I don't want to continue this dispute. Don't accuse me of anything, say you're sorry and we are done. Again, I am sorry if my words truly hurt you. But I didn't mean to hurt you was just being forthright in my views. I really didn't know that you were going to shower me with all sorts of accusations ranging from me being a "liar" to being a "veteran duck". I mean, this is absurd. Brendon is here 13:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Brendon for a second ask yourself why on earth a newbie editor would show up and engage single minded in a community process only" - I am interested in Islamic affairs and especially Muhammad article and by chance, I visited that Muhammad page, that was after one week of RfC's initiation (I didn't start commenting until a week 9 days after commencement of the said RfC) and if I'm not mistaken, a message was also displayed when I was setting up my preferences or settings or something I honestly don't remember. Brendon is here 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes but you made an account on the day it was created. Why did you make an account that day? Your story doesn't add up. You learned about the RfC from the Muhammad page, which you say are very interested in, but you had no knowledge of this situation the numerous times you visited before making your own account? You just innocently happened upon it a week after coincidentally starting an account the day the RfC started? Not likely. Also, how is it that you knew what an "edit-war" was the very first day you started editing? Again not likely. Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Valid question. Answer, I really don't know. Guess that's why it's co-incidence, don't you think?

"Your reticence to making up a story until now was well founded because the larger the lie gets the harder it is to keep track of or to make sense of." - you should really tone yourself down a notch. There is no need to get personal. If you had complained only about my incivility I would have never come here. But calling me a "sockpuppet" and a "liar", it's going way over the top. Brendon is here 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It took you this long to be outraged by that part of my comment? This gets better and better as you continue.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Note -- Just in case there is some confusion, Brendon did not initially react this way. His initial comment said nothing about the lie. He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point.Griswaldo (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have as much free time as you have probably. That's why I missed it. But frankly, I neither expected yet another personal attack nor noticed it at first glance. You are making it hard for me to keep my cool. You're disregarding my every amiable approach to sort this issue out without too much hassle and constantly vilifying me. Yet, you expect me to behave civilly? It's so wrong. The truth perhaps is that you don't want peace. Brendon is here 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not enough time? That doesn't seem right. Not from an editor who must have spent a ton of time figuring out all that formatting on his user page (especially given that he claims to be a newbie - I wouldn't have a clue how to do all that) or an editor who spent more time than anybody else at the RfC tendentiously arguing his point, over and over and over again, often in long drawn out messages with all kinds of fancy (and annoying) formatting. At this point it seems that pretty much nothing you claim makes a lick of sense. Keep it up.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"He edited the original instead of adding a new comment, hours later, to bring up that point." - What? Extending my comment is a crime now? I told you, I didn't notice your snarky comments at first.

"Not enough time? That doesn't seem right." - Again you invoke your derogatory personal opinions as if they meant something to me.

Tell me honestly what is it that I did to upset you so much? Are you here to avenge something? I don't believe that it's only my incivility (because I wasn't excessively rude to anyone except for that one comment to veritycheck, as far I can remember). What is it? Brendon is here 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One small request from Brendon

I think, Griswaldo is repeatedly committing

  • tu quoque (heavily),
  • non-sequitur (false exclusionary disjunct),
  • petitio principii

    fallacies all at the same time.

    Griswaldo is not quoting me in proper context and is neglecting to post my replies in their entirety. So my request is, please do visit the talk pages (and if needed all other relevant pages which are being cited by Griswaldo) before coming to any conclusion. Brendon is here 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    Yes please do go to those pages. You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations.Griswaldo (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    "You'll see many more examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL violations." - again you presume what they will find. Brendon is here 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    This is not the place

    If you have reason to believe of socking I would go and make a case for WP:SPI and let a checkuser or another clerk handle the matter from then on. The accusations made are serious and offensive, whether or not they are true. Wikiquette Assistance doesn't cover sockpuppetry and given the unusual nature of a community RfC that is plastered on everywhere it doesn't automatically equate to a sock puppet. Circumstancial evidence is no reason to go back and forth here, especially since the RfC deals with an ArbCom Case, it is an area in which sanctions can be imposed easily. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    Except I didn't bring this here, Brendon did. If he is going to complain here about my suggestion that he's a sock then of course I have every right to explain myself here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


    "The goal of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour - users can seek assistance regarding impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors."

    This is a place to resolve disputes, is it not? And that is what I am trying to do. So, I believe, for my part I chose the right place.
    However, this is not a right place for anyone who wants to continue dispute as opposed to resolving it, which is what perhaps Griswaldo here is trying to do. Brendon is here 09:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    While true. I've had this exact problem before and it is frustrating. Even if you defend yourself it doesn't deescalate the situation. Also this is a matter for WP:SPI. Any issue concerning sockpuppetry or sanctions should be handled by that group and they have the ability to resolve such a situation. If he is, he'll be dealt with accordingly. If not, then you should apologize and try to understand that this issue is very important to him as well as yourself. Even if you do not agree with him, certain responses have caused some personal suffering and we should try to resolve it. If you do not want to go to WP:SPI about it then try not to respond or let it concern you. Let the problem fade away and try not to let it concern you unless you are asked otherwise. You've made your point and this is not a formal process which action will be taken against you. The goal of WQA is to curtail such issues before they become actionable. The topic is a point of conflict for many editors, just please refrain from continuing it here. If you want I will go through the process and we can discuss the matter here. First one then the other. If both of you agree then we can settle this calmly here. Do both of you want to give this a try? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    For the record, you can include me in the group of people who are dubious about his origins and believe Brendon to be a Sock. I would support a SPI investigation as he is way too knowledgable for a newbie and basically was created about the time of the RfC and that's where 90%+ of his edits have been too. I have zero doubt that he is a "duck."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    Balloonman, your certainty is not on par with the evidence available. It doesn't comply with policy of assuming good faith either. Since you're accusing me of being a "duck" (seemingly abusive use of the word). I take it as a gratuitous offense.

    It's like also a breach of another Wikipedia policy namely civility. Hence, I don't like your or Griswaldo's approach. This kind of approach may in turn prove to be highly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please change your way of doubting the authenticity of everyone who disagrees with you. It doesn't help. Learn to respond to friendliness of a stranger. At least don't bite the hand of friendship. That's my request. Apart from that, you're free to believe whatever you want. Just refrain from violating any Wikipedia Policy. Brendon is here 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Your abrasive hand has hardly been one of friendship and you're not convincing anyone.Griswaldo (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly where have I been so abrasive here? I seek resolution that's all. You presumably want something else. It's not my fault. Change your attitude towards others who disagree with you.
    Wikipedia is not about winning or losing. (Thank you for educating me about WP:BATTLEGROUND, Griswaldo) Cheers. Brendon is here 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    Until it goes to SPI and they handle it, let's not escalate the situation further. Two wrongs don't make a right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    I don't know much about this, but I think it is reasonable to suppose that at least a moderate number of people wander into many Wikipedia namespace pages and lurk around; I know that there are quite a few arbitration cases that I have read in full (the case, the evidence, the workship, and the proposed decisions), even though I have never been involved in arbitration. Also, Wikipedia policy is easy to pick up since it is frequently cited everywhere; with enough lurking, it is quite easy to pick up on what kinds of policies are practiced. Also, I agree with ChrisGualtieri that if sockpuppetry is suspected, then SPI is the proper place to take such accusations. It should be noted that since Balloonman was also an opponent to Brendon111 in certain discussions, it is only natural that hard feelings come about.--New questions? 13:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Was pondering if I was going to write anything here since ChrisGualtieri clearly and elegant described the situation above and what steps should be done next, but still I keep seeing arguments and accusations being thrown around. Every time Griswaldo and now Balloonman reiterate their accusations about Brendon, things are made worse. We are not getting closer to resolve the conflict, and rather going farther from the goal. If Brendon is innocent, the result of all those accusations will be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. If he is guilty, throwing accusations around here will only prolonging the conflict and cause more distraction from the global goal of building an encyclopedia. Throwing around accusations on all those talk and user pages will also only lead to Brendon trying to defend himself. So stop, Simply stop. You have voiced your concern and been given instructions what to do next (WP:SPI or leave it to fade away). Nothing can be gained by Wikihounding him. Belorn (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

    Belorn I really don't appreciate this. Brendon started this discussion. Brendon keeps it going by replying to people's comments. Brendon also continued the discussion on my talk page once I finally left his. It is not Wikihounding to respond to someone who continues a discussion. Belorn, you did the same thing at the RfC. You chastised people for quite logically and naturally responding to Brendon's actions yet you do not chastize him for those actions. Why the double standard? Why are you getting angry at people who are responding to trolling and not the troll? I find that much more disturbing than anything you outline. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yet again, you vilified me by indicating that I am a troll. Why are you doing this, Gris? I asked what exactly is your problem but you didn't reply. You're wiki-hounding me. You started a discussion about me on the talk-page of the RfC about Muhammad's images?? You are instigating people against me (which was subsequently closed by User:Tarc). Why? Why are you attacking me personally this way? Brendon is here 13:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)\
    Griswaldo, you have made your defense and responses to be very clear. WQA cannot impose sanctions, blocks or other negative action on you or Brendon111. This place is to try and resolve problems between editors. Continuing on will only further provoke the situation and offend Brendon111 if he ISN'T what you accuse him of. If you are so convinced of his sock puppetry, please bring this to WP:SPI. Sockpuppet investigations is way in which action can be taken if he is indeed a sockpuppet. If he is not a sockpuppet you have given all the more reason for him to take action against you for ruining Wikipedia for him. As this continues it will push more from 'Don't bite the newcomers' to harassment. Several times we have suggested this go to SPI. Until you bring this before SPI, I'd suggest not further responding to anything Brendon111 is involved in or make any comments about him. This ends with SPI, not with us at WQA. Until then do not fan the flames anymore.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    Secondly Brendon111. It is best not to reply to Griswaldo. As difficult as the matter is, WQA cannot take action against him either. The only way in which this will end is if both of you refrain from picking at one another in your posts. We know your stance and we know you have considerable troubles. The accusation of sockpuppetry goes to SPI, if the accusation is untrue then I fully expect Griswaldo to apologize and try to come to an understanding. If you so wish, you can go to SPI and have them check you out. If SPI says you are not a sockpuppet and Griswaldo continues the next step is dispute resolution in which your vindication of sock puppetry is all the background you need to defend yourself. Otherwise the only way in which this problem ends if both you and Griswaldo stop replying to one another's comments. Though it should be noted, if he continues without going to SPI, action can be taken against him. Just don't fuel the fire. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0027198/
    2. ^ http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0041057/
    3. ^ Krugman, Paul (April 12, 2009). "Tea Parties Forever". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
    4. ^ Hannity, Sean (March 2, 2010). "Pelosi Backpedals on Tea Partiers". Hannity's America. FOX News Network.
    5. ^ Pelosi: Tea parties are part of an 'astroturf' campaign by 'some of the wealthiest people in America.' ThinkProgress, Apr 15, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2011.
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive117&oldid=1076618845"